Professional Documents
Culture Documents
s
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
a
l
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
.
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
T
o
t
a
l
r
u
r
a
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
N
o
n
-
a
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
M
e
n
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
R
e
la
t
i
v
e
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
(
%
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
N
o
n
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
W
o
m
e
n
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
R
e
la
t
i
v
e
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
(
%
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
N
o
n
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
d
(
%
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
(
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
(
%
)
N
o
n
-
r
e
m
u
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
(
%
)
N
o
n
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
d
(
%
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
(
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
(
%
)
N
o
n
-
r
e
m
u
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
(
%
)
I
n
d
i
c
a
d
o
r
e
s
T
o
t
a
l
r
u
r
a
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
N
o
n
-
a
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
M
e
n
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
R
e
la
t
i
v
e
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
(
%
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
N
o
n
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
W
o
m
e
n
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
R
e
la
t
i
v
e
t
o
t
o
t
a
l
(
%
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
N
o
n
A
g
r
i
c
u
lt
u
r
e
(
%
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
d
(
%
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
(
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
(
%
)
N
o
n
-
r
e
m
u
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
(
%
)
N
o
n
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
)
S
a
l
a
r
i
e
d
(
%
)
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
(
%
)
S
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
(
%
)
N
o
n
-
r
e
m
u
n
e
r
a
t
e
d
(
%
)
C
u
a
d
r
o
1
2
.
L
a
t
i
n
a
m
e
r
i
c
a
(
1
5
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
)
:
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
o
r
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
u
r
a
l
l
a
b
o
r
m
a
r
k
e
t
,
b
y
c
o
u
n
t
r
y
a
n
d
y
e
a
r
(
T
h
o
u
s
a
n
d
s
a
n
d
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
)
G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
H
o
n
d
u
r
a
s
M
e
x
i
c
o
P
a
n
a
m
a
P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y
P
e
r
u
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
1
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
,6
9
0
.2
2
,4
4
2
.8
1
,1
8
3
.1
1
,7
6
1
.0
1
4
,6
8
8
.7
1
6
,3
2
8
.1
3
3
7
.
3
5
0
0
.
1
1
,
1
0
0
.
2
1
,
2
3
1
.
1
4
,
3
2
4
.
1
5
,
8
4
6
.
7
7
2
.
4
5
9
.
1
5
5
.
5
6
4
.
0
6
2
.
8
4
5
.
6
3
5
.
3
4
3
.
5
4
9
.
4
6
4
.
6
5
8
.
8
7
4
.
9
7
2
.
9
6
8
.
8
4
0
.
9
4
4
.
5
3
6
.
0
3
7
.
2
5
4
.
4
6
4
.
7
5
6
.
5
5
0
.
6
3
5
.
4
4
1
.
2
2
5
.
1
2
7
.
1
3
1
.
2
1
,
8
9
0
.
3
1
,
7
7
1
.
0
9
0
7
.
6
1
,
1
0
5
.
1
1
0
,0
8
1
.6
1
1
,0
2
9
.2
2
6
5
.
5
3
5
0
.
2
7
6
0
.
1
8
2
8
.
2
2
,
4
2
7
.
0
3
,
2
0
0
.
2
4
7
.
8
7
0
.
3
7
2
.
5
7
6
.
7
7
2
.
3
6
8
.
6
6
7
.
5
7
8
.
7
7
0
.
0
6
9
.
1
6
7
.
3
5
6
.
1
5
4
.
7
6
6
.
0
7
0
.
3
6
7
.
3
7
8
.
4
7
6
.
2
5
4
.
5
4
4
.
7
5
3
.
5
5
8
.
0
7
1
.
0
6
4
.
0
7
9
.
4
7
5
.
3
7
7
.
7
2
9
.
7
3
2
.
7
2
1
.
6
2
3
.
8
4
5
.
5
5
5
.
3
4
6
.
5
4
2
.
0
2
9
.
0
3
6
.
0
2
0
.
6
2
4
.
7
2
2
.
3
7
9
9
.
9
6
7
2
.
0
2
7
5
.
5
6
5
5
.
9
4
.
6
0
7
.
1
5
,
2
9
8
.
9
7
1
.
8
1
4
9
.
9
3
4
0
.
1
4
0
2
.
9
1
,
8
9
7
.
1
2
,
6
4
6
.
5
2
4
.
6
2
9
.
7
2
7
.
5
2
3
.
3
2
7
.
7
3
1
.
4
3
2
.
5
2
1
.
3
3
0
.
0
3
0
.
9
3
2
.
7
4
3
.
9
4
5
.
3
3
4
.
0
3
2
.
6
2
4
.
6
1
6
.
6
2
7
.
5
2
6
.
1
1
5
.
8
6
.
5
2
9
.
3
5
0
.
3
4
8
.
2
6
9
.
2
7
0
.
0
5
1
.
6
6
7
.
4
7
5
.
4
8
3
.
4
7
2
.
5
7
3
.
9
8
4
.
2
9
3
.
5
7
0
.
7
4
9
.
7
5
1
.
8
3
0
.
8
3
0
.
0
4
8
.
4
1
,
5
8
8
.
6
1
,
3
5
6
.
0
7
5
7
.
3
1
,
1
0
5
.
1
6
,
6
9
3
.
1
5
,
7
6
9
.
2
1
4
6
.
6
2
4
7
.
1
7
1
0
.
5
7
2
4
.
0
3
,
2
3
9
.
2
4
,
2
6
0
.
9
4
9
.
9
3
1
.
8
3
7
.
9
3
1
.
2
2
6
.
8
3
9
.
9
4
5
.
1
2
9
.
2
2
6
.
4
1
3
.
6
1
1
.
3
1
4
.
7
1
4
.
0
4
7
.
1
2
.
0
0
.
6
1
.
4
1
.
0
5
.
0
2
1
.
9
3
.
4
2
.
5
3
.
3
2
.
7
6
.
1
5
.
9
1
1
.
5
2
9
.
7
3
7
.
0
4
5
.
2
5
0
.
1
3
4
.
6
1
7
.
9
5
4
.
1
7
1
.
1
5
4
.
4
5
7
.
5
4
0
.
2
4
3
.
0
3
5
.
0
3
6
.
5
2
4
.
4
2
2
.
2
2
2
.
1
2
0
.
5
1
5
.
1
1
3
.
2
0
.
0
2
8
.
7
2
8
.
5
3
9
.
0
3
7
.
1
6
.
4
1
,
1
0
1
.
6
1
,
0
8
6
.
9
4
2
5
.
8
6
5
5
.
9
7
,
9
9
5
.
6
1
0
,5
5
8
.9
1
9
0
.
7
2
5
3
.
1
3
8
9
.
7
5
0
7
.
1
1
,
0
8
4
.
8
1
,
5
8
5
.
8
2
2
.
6
4
9
.
1
5
6
.
0
4
6
.
4
4
1
.
5
6
0
.
4
7
0
.
8
6
4
.
4
6
2
.
5
5
1
.
5
5
8
.
5
3
8
.
8
4
9
.
5
7
0
.
7
4
.
6
2
.
0
2
.
4
1
.
9
4
.
9
9
.
6
1
.
9
2
.
7
4
.
3
4
.
9
3
.
6
2
.
9
5
.
0
3
0
.
7
3
3
.
0
4
0
.
7
4
4
.
7
2
7
.
1
1
4
.
0
3
2
.
2
3
4
.
7
3
8
.
2
3
0
.
8
5
0
.
9
4
1
.
5
2
3
.
3
1
5
.
6
9
.
0
1
0
.
4
1
1
.
9
7
.
6
5
.
7
1
.
6
0
.
0
6
.
0
5
.
8
6
.
8
6
.
2
1
.
0
E
l
S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
2
0
0
0
2
0
1
0
8
5
8
.
1
8
5
4
.
6
4
8
.
2
5
0
.
3
5
1
.
8
4
9
.
7
6
0
1
.
3
5
9
4
.
7
7
0
.
1
6
9
.
6
6
3
.
9
6
4
.
6
3
6
.
1
3
5
.
4
2
5
6
.
8
2
5
9
.
9
2
9
.
9
3
0
.
4
1
1
.
3
1
7
.
4
8
8
.
7
8
2
.
6
4
1
3
.
2
4
2
9
.
4
3
7
.
4
3
9
.
9
7
.
1
4
.
1
3
5
.
1
3
1
.
6
2
0
.
3
2
4
.
4
4
4
4
.
9
4
2
5
.
1
5
7
.
1
5
7
.
8
2
.
3
2
.
1
3
4
.
6
3
2
.
8
6
.
0
7
.
3
100 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 101 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Countries Age groups 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Bolivia (ps)
0-14 44.8 44.3 43.6 42.6 38.9
15-64 51.5 51.5 51.7 52.0 55.1
Over 65 3.7 4.2 4.7 5.4 6.0
Brazil
0-14 46.2 42.9 40.7 35.4 32.7
15-64 50.6 52.7 54.5 59.2 60.8
Over 65 3.3 4.4 4.8 5.3 6.5
Chile
0-14 43.5 36.4 31.7 28.5 22.7
15-64 51.3 57.6 61.6 63.2 66.8
Over 65 5.2 6.0 6.7 8.3 10.5
Colombia
0-14 49.1 45.1 41.1 37.6 32.4
15-64 47.6 51.1 54.6 57.7 61.9
Over 65 3.3 3.8 4.2 4.7 5.7
Costa Rica
0-14 48.6 41.0 39.0 35.3 29.4
15-64 47.5 55.0 56.7 60.1 65.1
Over 65 3.9 4.1 4.2 4.6 5.5
Ecuador
0-14 45.9 46.0 42.7 38.5 34.3
15-64 49.8 49.7 52.7 56.1 58.8
Over 65 4.3 4.3 4.6 5.4 6.9
El Salvador
0-14 49.7 48.8 45.3 40.4 37.0
15-64 47.9 48.4 51.0 55.2 58.1
Over 65 2.4 2.8 3.7 4.4 4.9
Guatemala
0-14 46.5 47.4 47.9 48.5 47.5
15-64 51.0 50.0 49.2 48.2 49.2
Over 65 2.5 2.6 2.9 3.3 3.3
Honduras
0-14 49.5 49.5 48.8 46.3 41.0
15-64 47.5 47.4 47.9 49.8 54.7
Over 65 3.0 3.1 3.3 3.9 4.3
Mexico
0-14 48.9 48.6 43.2 38.3 32.8
15-64 47.4 47.5 52.2 56.0 59.7
Over 65 3.7 3.9 4.6 5.8 7.4
Nicaragua
0-14 49.8 50.2 49.6 44.7 38.3
15-64 48.1 47.5 47.5 52.1 57.8
Over 65 2.1 2.3 2.9 3.2 3.9
Panama
0-14 48.1 44.8 39.7 37.5 35.0
15-64 47.9 51.0 55.5 56.8 58.1
Over 65 4.0 4.3 4.7 5.7 6.9
Paraguay
0-14 49.7 46.9 45.9 42.5 38.1
15-64 47.1 49.7 50.3 53.3 56.9
Over 65 3.1 3.4 3.7 4.2 5.0
Peru
0-14 46.8 46.4 45.1 42.6 36.0
15-64 49.4 49.6 50.8 52.9 58.9
Over 65 3.8 4.0 4.1 4.6 5.1
Dominican
Republic
0-14 49.8 44.5 39.8 36.7 34.3
15-64 47.5 52.5 56.2 58.0 59.3
Over 65 2.7 3.0 4.0 5.3 6.4
Uruguay
0-14 29.3 27.6 25.6 24.3 22.3
15-64 63.9 64.4 65.3 64.8 66.4
Over 65 6.7 8.0 9.1 10.9 11.3
Venezuela (br)
0-14 49.8 46.7 43.6 39.7 35.9
15-64 46.9 49.5 52.3 55.3 57.7
Over 65 3.4 3.8 4.2 5.0 6.4
Source: celade.
Public Policies and Institutional Framework
Measures taken by countries to face the economic crisis have
enhanced the role of Family Farming in the region
Te fght against the negative efects of the food crisis has continued to dictate agricultural
priorities in the region. Te implementation of programmes and policies of wider scope,
in some cases with the participation of local organizations, has helped to strengthen state
actions in the agricultural sector. In the search for solutions to the current situation of
economic uncertainty, countries are focusing on Family Farming, both in the targeting of
emergency programmes and the development of this sectors potential to mitigate the impact
of the agri-food crisis.
In some countries of * lac, the modernization of the
state has included the restructuring of the Minis-
tries of Agriculture and dependent organizations.
This has resulted in Ministries of Agriculture with
more limited responsibilities and the transfer of
functions to other ministries.
In response to the demands for greater partici- *
pation of civil society organizations, some spa-
ces for dialogue in the agricultural sector have
been strengthened in terms of the development
of Family Farming policies, such as the Specia-
lized Meeting on Family Farming (reaf) in the
mercosur countries, and the Regional Rural Dia-
logue Programme in Central America, which have
helped to create an environment for farmers to
exercise their rights.
An opportunity generated by the food crisis is *
the role of Family Farming as a provider of food
and raw materials for agro-industry, as well as a
source of employment. As a result, rural areas are
being recognized for their important contribution
to the sustainable development of societies in the
region.
Countries in Latin America and the Caribbean have *
strengthened commercial ties, thus encouraging
regional integration. This could be the starting
point for the creation of a regional trade bloc.
Cuadro 13.
Amrica Latina y el Caribe: distribucin de la Poblacion rural por grupos de edad (Porcentajes)
Perodo 1970-2010
Facts
Trends
Governments continue seeking solutions and
implementing measures to mitigate the vola- ng measures to mitigate the vola- g measures to mitigate the vola-
tility of food prices
The reduction or mitigation of the negative impacts
of the volatility of food prices on the population has
become a priority for governments in the region that
have implemented various measures to deal with the
problem (eclac/fao/iica, 2011). In the past year, these
have included the following:
Promoting the production of staple foods in small-scale
agriculture: through subsidies for raw materials, tech-
nical assistance and marketing support. Te majority
102 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 103 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
of countries in the region have implemented some
of these measures, especially Central America and
Mexico.
Support for investment, mainly in Bolivia and Peru,
which have established programmes for the acquisi-
tion of agricultural machinery. Also, the countries
of the Caribbean have built roads and infrastructure
for irrigation and drainage that are necessary for the
development of agricultural activity.
Improvement in the functioning of agri-food markets:
Brazil, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guatema-
la have implemented measures to enhance the capa-
city of public sector intervention in markets, such
as direct purchases and the search for new sources of
imported foods, among others.
In some countries of the region, these short-term mea-
sures have been accompanied by longer-term actions
to increase investment in agriculture and strengthen
rural development, although these are still incipient.
Advancing with such broader measures makes sense,
since currently most of the regions most vulnerable
population lives in rural areas.
National trade policies are starting to promote
intraregional trade
Countries have faced the scenario of economic uncer-
tainty by establishing measures to mitigate the negative
impact on their territories and increasing intraregional
trade.
In domestic markets, trade policies have been geared to
mitigate the effects of the volatility of food prices. Some
countries have taken temporary measures, such as those
aimed at restricting the export of certain agricultural
products; however, the trend is towards the introduc-
tion of medium and long-term measures to insert local
agricultural products in markets, especially in the most
vulnerable sectors. In this context, some countries have
established programmes to promote the consumption
of local products, produced mostly by small-scale far-
mers, in order to decrease their dependence on food
imports. In addition, some countries in the region are
using Family Farming to supply food for basic nutrition
programmes.
In terms of extra-regional trade, the region has res-
ponded to the growing demand from North America,
Europe, and Asia, by signing bilateral and multilateral
trade agreements of differing scope, including Costa
Rica-China; Peru-European Union; United States-
Colombia; and Colombia-Liechtenstein-Switzerland.
There have also been signifcant advances towards the
signing of an agreement between Central America and
the European Union, and in the negotiations related to
the Transpacifc Partnership, in which Chile and Peru
are taking part along with the United States, Australia
and Singapore, among other countries.
The gradual increase of trade agreements with lac coun-
tries was made possible by the reduction of barriers to
agricultural trade, which have resulted in better con-
ditions of access to markets for these countries. This
trend is also observed in domestic markets with the
reduction in tariffs paid by importers of agricultural
products (Sotomayor et al., 2011).
Intraregional trade has continued to expand through
the signing of free trade agreements between Peru and
Costa Rica, Mexico and Peru, and Mexico and Central
America. In addition, there has been progress in nego-
tiations between Peru and Venezuela, Guatemala and
Peru, and Panama and Trinidad & Tobago.
The increase in intraregional trade is especially impor-
tant with regard to food products since it has helped to
improve food security, as well as to mitigate the effects
of the economic crisis on the regions population.
Agricultural innovation: Falling behind
Te region allocates 0.6% of its gdp to fnance research
and development (R&D), representing less than one
third of the United States expenditure on R&D (2.8%
of gdp). R&D investment is clearly not a priority in
the region, even though the need of countries for new
technologies to transform their agricultural production
matrix and increase the development of the sector is
evident.
In recent years, agricultural innovation actions in the
region have been oriented towards the pursuit of prof-
tability in business activities, which explains why innova-
tion is concentrated in the private sector with successful
farmers receiving most of the support while small-scale
agriculture has been marginalized. Tis means that lac
countries have not been able to establish an approach to
innovation that ensures the inclusion of all stakeholders
in the region.
Even though the current situation in innovation is not
encouraging in the region, there are exceptions such as
Argentina, which has a research centre aimed specifcally
at family farming (cipaf). Other countries, such as Brazil
and Uruguay have designed research programmes for
family farming in coordination with local agricultural
research centres (emprapa and inia, respectively).
Te need to improve innovation in the region was
highlighted in the Meeting of Ministers of Agriculture
of the Americas (2011), in which the ministers commit-
ted to promoting technological innovation to better
integrate the food sector, including family farmers, in
value chains, as well as strengthening extension systems
and incorporating innovative knowledge transfer me-
thodologies adapted to producers realities.
Countries have strengthened institutional su-
pport for Family Farming
In recent years, countries of the region have gradually
recognized the importance of Family Farming in the
provision of basic foods and the mitigation of economic
crises, as well as in the use of sustainable agricultural
practices. To improve the effectiveness of the support
for this sector, some countries have created program-
mes targeted at providing specialized support to family
farmers, including El Salvadors Family Agriculture Plan,
Paraguays Family Agriculture Food Production Progra-
mme, Mexicos masagro programme (which promotes
the production of corn and beans in small-scale agri-
culture), Guatemalas Programme for the Strengthening
of the Rural Economy through Family Agriculture and
Perus Agrarian Rural Development Programme (agro-
rural).
Other countries have created and/or restructured their
regulatory and institutional frameworks. Argentina
created the Ministry of Rural Development and Family
Farming, and Uruguay created the General Directorate
of Rural Development, which are institutions designed
to meet the demands of Family Farming. In the same
way, Costa Ricas Ministry of Agriculture developed the
Family Farming Strategy, declaring the need of an insti-
tutional framework for the sector. In Brazil, amendments
to the existing regulatory framework were introduced,
including law No. 12.188/2010 which established the Na-
tional Policy of Technical Assistance and Rural Extension
for Family Farming and Agrarian Reform (pnater) and
the National Technical Assistance and Rural Extension
Programme (pronater).
In some countries, the creation or redesign of institu-
tions and programmes has included the participation
of local organizations, which has generated greater links
between governments and these organizations. An exam-
ple of this is Brazils National Federation of Agricultural
Workers (contag), which represents 20 million rural
workers and has been involved in discussions with the
government of Brazil with respect to the coordination
of public policies and their impact on agriculture. In
Argentina, the Family Farming Organizations Forum
(fonaf) and the Agrarian Federation of Argentina (afa)
bring together small and medium-sized producers that
have participated in joint issues to support Family Far-
ming and farming cooperatives.
In addition to the above initiatives, some countries that
have signed free trade agreements have implemented
programmes to strengthen links between the state and
Family Farming organizations, establishing innovative
policy mechanisms aimed at small-scale agriculture.
Examples of this include the Specialized Meeting of Fa-
mily Farming (reaf) of mercosur, which is comprised of
representatives of 10 countries in the region, and Central
Americas Regional Rural Dialogue Programme, involving
organizations from Central America and the Dominican
Republic within the framework of the Central America
Agricultural Policy. Tese initiatives have identifed the
main variables that facilitate the integration of Family
Farming with modernization processes.
Social inclusion is a priority in many countries
Some countries in the region have created regulatory fra-
meworks for social development and inclusion with the
aim of improving the impacts of public programmes de-
signed to reduce poverty and inequality. Such is the case
of the Central American Strategy of Rural Development
(2010), drafted by the Central American Agricultural
Council, which aims to promote the management of
inclusive rural development policies. Meanwhile, other
countries have created institutions specifcally to im-
plement social inclusion policies, notably two countries
of the Andean Community: Ecuador, which in 2008
created the Ministry of Economy and Social Inclusion
(mies), and Peru, which created the Ministry of Deve-
lopment and Social Inclusion (midis) in 2011.
Trough such initiatives, which are being copied throug-
hout the region, these countries aim to move from tem-
porary programmes of poverty alleviation towards multi-
sectoral actions to improve the access of the population
104 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 105 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Mexico is a pioneer in the region in terms of
results-based public management. On January 20,
2004, the General Social Development Act was
promulgated, paving the way for this new manage-
ment model. The Act created the National Council
for the Evaluation of Social Development Policy
(coneval), as a decentralized public entity with
its own assets and technical autonomy. coneval,
with the participation of prominent academics,
has become the institution responsible for issuing
guidelines to monitor the entities responsible for
implementing social programmes. The Federal
Budget and Fiscal Responsibility Law of March 30,
2006, makes it compulsory for all state entities to
evaluate the results of their programmes accor-
ding to the norms of national or international ex-
perts, academic institutions and research agencies
that have experience in related areas.
Since 2008, the country has passed reforms aimed
at improving the effciency of public spending
through a results-based approach. The Perfor-
mance Evaluation System (sed) was created to
track and evaluate systematically the policies and
programmes of federal agencies, thus contributing
to the achievement of the objectives set out in the
National Development Plan.
In addition, coneval in partnership with the Minis-
try of Finance and the Ministry of Public Adminis-
tration publishes an Annual Evaluation of Federal
Programmes, which includes the participation of
private offces, universities, and international orga-
nizations. A Matrix of Results Indicators has also
been developed for all government programmes. In
the case of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock,
Rural Development, Fishing and Food (sagarpa),
fao has participated in these evaluations (http://
www.fao-evaluacion.org.mx/pagina/index.php)
as well as in the evaluation and training of federal
and state offcials. The result of this collaboration
between fao, sagarpa, and coneval has led to
sagarpa being recognized for good practices in: 1)
The baseline survey of sagarpas 2008 program-
mes, 2) Systematization of the baseline survey for
the measurement of results and impacts, and 3)
Implementation of the matrix of results indicators
of sagarpas programmes with federal resourcescia
de recursos en las entidades federativas.
Box 3: Results-based public management in Mexico
to economic opportunities and services. However, it is
important to consider that this requires adequate rural
coordination mechanisms that in many countries of the
region present serious weaknesses.
Outlook
The region will strengthen results-based pu-
blic management and measure the effects of
policies
The modernization processes of public management
are moving increasingly towards agreements that allow
measures to be reviewed. It is becoming more common
to link state modernization with Management Results.
But public offcials in lac, focused on processes that fx
objectives in compliance with regulations determined by
their institutional structures, seem to be lagging behind;
even though much remains to be done in this area.
Results-based management was implemented several
years ago in Chile, where indicators showing the effect
of public policies on society have been improving. The
Dominican Republic uses the term programme agree-
ment that is subject to budgetary review by parliament.
Mexico (Box 3), Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Ecuador,
Bolivia, Venezuela and Colombia have implemented
similar management models.
Results-based management is emerging as a response to
the need to unlock the processes of economic and social
development. The aim is the design and/or development
of mechanisms to optimize the resource allocation pro-
cess, creating greater public value.
Other areas in which the modernization of public ma-
nagement needs to be strengthened include cooperation
and partnership with the private sector, especially with
regard to the elaboration and implementation of natio-
nal development strategies in which the involvement of
the private sector is key.
Improving the measurement of results is a challenge
for governments of the region. The results of sector
interventions not only demand assessment and follow-
up; it is necessary to know about the degree of impact
on the quality of life of the population, particularly in
those programmes that aim to increase incomes for
farmers and promote their inclusion in economic acti-
vity. Although measuring impacts can be complex and
costly, it is a good way of determining if scarce resour-
ces are having the desired effect on the improvement
of opportunities for the poorest families. In this regard,
project guidelines are needed that allow institutions to
understand the process of improving the quality of life
for different sectors of the population.
Countries of the region will recognize the im-
portance of Family Farming in solving the food
crisis
As a result of the numerous studies by countries of the
region to solve or mitigate the effects of the food crisis,
it is clear that Family Farming plays a fundamental role
in providing food and raw materials, generating income,
promoting the sustainability of resources, as well as in
mitigating the impact of the volatility of food prices.
Aid agencies recognize this situation, which is why they
have incorporated Family Farming as one of their main
themes. fao and iica have also made this sector one of
the priority areas that will guide their medium-term
agendas in the region.
In order to take advantage of the potential of Family
Farming, public support for this sector is needed to
increase food production and thus reduce the impact
of higher and more volatile food prices, as well as to
increase the role of Family Farming in climate change
mitigation and adaptation. To achieve this in the near
future, countries face the following challenges:
Institutional development: Tis is a trend already
observed in the region, as outlined in this chapter,
but which has still not been expressed with suf-
cient force in some countries. Te region as a whole
requires an institutional and regulatory framework
suitable to the needs of development of small-scale
agriculture.
Characterization of Family Farming: Te optimal
design of public policies requires knowledge and
awareness about the situation of the participants,
which is why lac countries need to improve the
existing systems of information about the sector in
the short term. Tis task is even more important
considering that Family Agriculture is a widely hete-
rogeneous sector in terms of human and productive
resources.
Strengthening associativity and cooperation: Te as-
sociativity of family farmers in the region is still in-
cipient. States are continuing to engage in dialogue
with producer organizations to improve policies and
interventions, and help to optimize the management
of small-scale farms.
Promote access to markets and integration into value
chains: In order to strengthen the role played by
Family Agriculture as a provider of raw materials,
the countries of the region must take actions ai-
med at establishing linkages between small farmers
and agri-business. Tere have been some successful
experiences in the region, such as the Productive
Alliances Programme in Chile and Colombia and
the implementation of Inclusive Businesses in Ecua-
dor.
Facilitate innovation and access to technologies adapted
to the reality of the sector: Countries need to allocate
more resources for research in Family Farming pro-
duction systems, as well as for the design of innova-
tive extension methodologies.
Finally, the implementation of the actions described
above will make the contribution of Family Farming
to the economy increasingly visible in society. The un
has declared 2014 to be the International Year of Fa-
mily Farming, which will help to position this sector
amongst the priorities of lac governments.
The state will continue to strengthen public
procurement of food supplies, thereby genera-
ting opportunities for Family Farming
Public procurement systems have been implemented in
some countries in the region to ensure the availability of
food for the population. Countries have achieved this
by creating public agencies to buy the production of
family farmers. This is the case of Nicaragua through
the Nicaraguan Basic Foods Company (enabas). Brazil
has also developed the Public Acquisition of Food from
Family Farming Programme (paa). In addition, Brazil
has incorporated Family Farming in its School Nutri-
tion Programme through a law (Law No 11.947/2009)
106 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 107 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
guaranteeing that a minimum of 30% of the states to-
tal purchase of food for this programme comes from
family farmers.
Other countries are also adopting the strategy of esta-
blishing Family Farming as a supplier for public food and
nutrition programmes. During a meeting of the regions
Ministers of Agriculture in 2011, they highlighted the
role that the state plays in strengthening small-scale far-
ming through public procurement, which stimulates the
inclusion of this sector in markets and enables farmers
to obtain fair prices.
The development of such public purchase schemes
could eventually cross national boundaries, such as the
agreement signed recently between Argentina, Brazil,
Paraguay and Uruguay, under which Brazils Public
Acquisition of Food from Family Farming Programme
is open to all these countries with the aim of creating a
network for countries to support each other in a food
emergency. This initiative could be replicated elsewhere
in the region.
The development of public procurement programmes
for Family Farming can generate solutions to common
challenges through the exchange of experiences. Some
challenges including food safety, associativity of produ-
cers, diversifcation of production, etc., can be overcome
through the implementation of joint actions.
Countries will create innovation systems that are
relevant to the needs of the agriculture sector
The promotion of agricultural innovation in lac requires
a more integrated vision since the sector involves many
stakeholders, such as research centres, suppliers of raw
materials, universities and farmers, among others. As
a result, countries are adapting their institutional fra-
meworks to support the creation of new innovation
systems in which agricultural extension programmes
play an important role.
The creation of innovation systems will help improve
the competitiveness of the sector, through coordinated
actions adapted to the reality of each subsector. These
actions can help to match supply and demand for inno-
vation, thereby improving resource effciency. In short,
more systems of innovation in the region will contribute
to an effective integration between research, extension
programmes and agricultural production.
The need to reduce the existing innovation gap with
developed countries and between sectors within coun-
tries is a priority for the region. To achieve this goal,
Family Farming should be explicitly included in national
innovation agendas. This is a great challenge because
systems must be capable of responding to the needs
of a large and heterogeneous sector with very different
needs. Given the magnitude of this challenge, coun-
tries need to focus efforts to reform and modernize
extension programmes that are suited to different types
of farming activities. In this regard, lessons could be
learned from the experience of Argentinas National
Institute of Agricultural Technology (inta), which runs
programmes for innovation and technology transfer in
Family Farming.
Te participation of the private sector in innovation
systems will increase. Tis will complement public sector
eforts, increase the coverage of innovation systems, and
improve conditions of equality by prioritizing the use of
public resources in the most vulnerable sectors.
States will implement measures that allow
equitable access to the land
Worldwide there is increasing pressure on land use,
mainly due to population growth and the level of con-
sumption, as well as the demand for biofuels and the
effects of climate change. This pressure has resulted in
an increase in demand and, in some countries, in a trend
towards the concentration of land ownership. In this
new scenario, the countries of the region are adapting
legal frameworks regarding land ownership and creating
or reforming land policies.
The region is addressing structural imbalances in access
to land. This situation has become so important that, in
May 2012, fao member countries adopted the new Vo-
luntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of
Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests. These guidelines
constitute a guiding instrument at a global level, esta-
blishing principles and standards that provide practical
guidance to governments, civil society and the private
sector, including topics such as access and the use of
resources, markets and investment. This document will
be useful for the reformulation of strategies, policies
and laws relating to concentration and competition for
control of natural resources.
Extra-sectoral factors are likely to assume greater
importance in the development of agriculture
The food crisis in the region has increased the visibility
of agriculture and its effects on countries economies.
The Ministries of Finance and Central Banks of the
region show a growing concern for infation, exchange-
rate effects and public defcits generated by the beha-
viour of the food market. In addition, governments have
focused efforts on studying the possible effects of trade
restrictions on agricultural products that are identifed
as using non-sustainable practices.
Countries are expected to develop agricultural poli-
cies in the near future with the participation of other
government agencies in addition to the Ministries of
Agriculture. The implementation of such policies could
translate into substantive improvements in the quality
of life of farmers in the region.
The region will take effective and timely ac-
tion in terms of climate change mitigation and
adaptation
Many countries of the region are developing an insti-
tutional framework necessary to address climate chan-
ge. Central America, the Caribbean and the Andean
Community have regional strategies for dealing with
climate change. In addition, some countries are cu-
rrently developing national sectoral climate change
strategies (Nicaragua, Chile, Uruguay and Peru). Both
instruments are valuable since they establish the basis
to develop new policies, as well as to coordinate and
prioritize actions aimed at climate change mitigation
and adaptation.
Preventative measures will continue to be prioritized over
emergency measures. In this regard, actions aimed at di-
saster risk management (such as the recent law enacted in
Colombia) will set the regional climate change agenda.
Countries are making progress in eliminating subsidies
that negatively afect the environment, and creating
measures and technologies to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions. Tese eforts are still in an early stage in most
countries. In fact, Mexico is the only country in the
region that has a law aimed at the gradual reduction of
carbon dioxide emissions. Brazil has also made some ad-
vances in this area through the Low-Carbon Agriculture
Programme (abc Plan, 2010) aimed at establishing vo-
luntary greenhouse gas reduction targets for farmers.
Countries must increase their exchange of information
and take joint measures to address the impacts of clima-
te change and reduce its negative efects. Tis requires
policies, programmes, monitoring systems and bilateral
or subregional phytosanitary alerts.
Family Farming requires special measures to adapt to
climate change, owing to the conditions of climate vul-
nerability in which part of the population lives. In this
sector, actions are needed to promote the sustainable
management of productive systems.
At the national level, greater public-private integration
is needed to defne priority actions in climate change
agendas.
Finally, and as part of their adaptation strategy, countries
are making eforts to bring about a cultural change in
citizens with regard to climate change and its efects on
agriculture.
Countries will accelerate the process of de-
centralization in the agricultural sector and
strengthen local institutions
In the last decade, modernization processes in most
countries of the region have made decentralization a
key priority to improve public management. However, in
many countries this process has been problematic, with
high levels of centralism still prevailing and weak coor-
dination of policies between the various ministries. In
addition, in many cases local governments do not have
the resources or capabilities to perform the functions
attributed to them, thus preventing them from proper
vertical coordination of policies.
To improve decentralization processes in the agricul-
tural sector countries need to overcome the following
challenges in the near future:
Strengthen local institutions: Tis will allow the im-
provement of physical and professional capacities as
well as budget increases for the fulflment of their
functions.
Defnition of institutional functions : Tis will allow go-
vernments to defne the felds of action of each insti-
tution, including their technical and political powers,
as well as identifying inter-agency synergies.
108 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 109 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Creation of new fexible institutions: Tese can adapt
their structures in order to respond better to the di-
versities of the territories.
Defnition of the territorial planning unit: Tis will
result in the establishment of territorial agendas and
management agreements of various kinds that will
form an integral part of government agendas and will
help to identify the territorys potential.
Development of mechanisms for coordination and con-
trol between all levels of government: Tis will allow
a more efcient use of public resources while con-
tributing to transparency in the management and
coherence of public interventions.
Creating spaces for citizen participation at all levels of
government: Tis will validate public management
at all levels and help to build a shared vision of the
sector in the future.
Meeting these challenges will help countries to build
a stronger institutional foundation that is coordinated
with the diferent levels of government. Tis will im-
prove governance and promote processes of economic
development, thereby reducing poverty levels.
Finally, it is important to consider that decentralization
processes will require a cultural change from the histo-
rically centralist approach at diferent levels of gover-
nment, to an approach characterized by programmes
designed and operated at the local level.
Policy recommendations
Improve the process of democratic governance
by increasing civil society participation in po-
licy decisions
The region is witnessing a major change in the develo-
pment paradigm. In the past, the region sought to limit
the regressive effects of economic models; today there
is an interest in transforming the economic system in
which social issues are not just another element, but
rather the driving factor. In this context, civil society
plays a central role.
However, good governance is diffcult to achieve, even
more so in developing countries. In analysing countries
that boast the best governance indices, a common factor
is that they have incorporated various stakeholders in
the decision-making process including actors from civil
society, the private sector and the state. The public and
private sectors are cooperating more in the formulation
and implementation of policies. It is clear, then, the need
for the region to increase the participation of all sec-
tors of society in decision-making, especially the sectors
that have, until now, been marginalized. This takes on
greater meaning in Family Farming, which in most of
the countries of the region has been excluded from the
process of policy formulation. The strengthening of this
sectors participation is a key factor for strengthening
agriculture policies and programmes.
The adoption of the Voluntary Guidelines for the Res-
ponsible Governance of the Tenure of Land, Fisheries
and Forests is important in the context of the food crisis
to strengthen aspects of governance in the sector; this
can also directly (and indirectly) impact indices of good
governance in Family Farming.
Tere has already been some progress in increasing the
participation of the agricultural sector, such as the Spe-
cialized Meeting on Family Farming (reaf) and the Re-
gional Rural Dialogue Program, already mentioned in
this chapter, in which governments and family farmers
representatives from diferent countries of the region
discuss and propose public policies aimed at the rural
sector. At the national level, examples include Costa
Ricas Agriculture and Rural Development Policy 2010-
2021, Argentinas Agri-food and Agro-industrial Stra-
tegic Plan 20102016, and Panamas Strategic Action
Plan for the Agricultural Sector 2010-2014, which are
all based on a public-private consensus and a long-term
vision. Another example is Brazils National Extension
Policy, drawn up with the participation of relevant ac-
tors from civil society. Certainly, there is room for more
spaces of public participation in the region in order to
improve levels of equality and strengthen policies.
Promote the development of agriculture poli-
cies with a long-term vision
The development of agriculture in the region is a com-
plex challenge that requires overcoming problems of
various kinds, many of which exceed the scope of action
of agricultural institutions. Therefore, countries must
address this challenge with a more integral and solid
vision, concentrating efforts towards the design and
coordination of long-term policies and strategies that
are consistent in all areas relating to the development
of agriculture. To achieve this goal, governments must
strengthen strategic planning and develop clear defni-
tions of the functions of the institutions involved.
In this new environment it is increasingly important
that governments promote cross-sectoral work, aimed
at the design of policies for the development of agri-
culture, including those created by related sectors that
afect agricultural performance and not just agricultural
policies.
Results-based public management: a long-term
challenge for the region
The implementation of a results-based management
model requires a number of changes within the state,
as well as the development of capabilities to implement
this methodology in an optimal way. The adoption of
results-based management is not easy since it requires
a cultural change in the institutions.
In this regard, ministries must motivate their staff and
senior management on the advantages of this new form
of governance, as well as training them in the new me-
thodology. Qualifed staff can be valuable agents of
change within institutions, contributing to the effective
implementation of this system.
Design agricultural policies adapted to the rea-
lity of each sector
In order to achieve the equitable and sustainable develo-
pment of agriculture, it is increasingly important that the
countries of the region recognize the sectors social and
economic heterogeneity and the need to develop policies
and programmes relevant to different realities. In the
case of Family Farming, it is particularly important to
realize the potential of this sector in the production of
goods and services. It should be noted that there are still
few countries of the region that have policies and/or
programmes designed especially for Family Farming.
The design of specifc and effective agriculture policies
requires a thorough knowledge of each sector. Most
countries lack sector-specifc studies, especially in the
Family Agriculture sector. For this reason, it is recom-
mended that countries perform studies to quantify the
contribution of Family Farming to the economy, as
well as of different types of producers and their main
demands and competitiveness gaps.
Promote the use of ICTs that strengthen the res-
ponse capacity of public institutions
The advantages resulting from the adoption of Infor-
mation and Communication Technologies (icts) in state
modernization are well-known, especially their contribu-
tion to transparency in public management. However,
progress in the region is varied and in general there is
still a long way to go, especially in Central America and
the Caribbean.
Some countries have implemented policies to promote
these technologies, such as the national e-government
strategies of Colombia, Chile, Uruguay and Argentina
(eclac/fao/iica, 2011). However, the adoption of these
strategies in agricultural institutions has been slower
than in other state entities. Countries that have not yet
adopted these technologies must develop regulations to
promote their use in all public institutions.
It is recommended that countries improve the orienta-
tion of these technologies towards end users. To achieve
this, institutional websites must be made user-friendly
and kept up to date. Governments must also make more
public services available online, which is an area where
there is a large gap compared to developed countries.
In addition, governments must move quickly in the
implementation of the electronic signature to increase
the provision of public services online. In this regard,
countries should review the experiences of Colombia,
Chile, Uruguay, Mexico and El Salvador, which show
a level of public services available online that is higher
than the average for developed countries (eclac/fao/
iica, 2011).
Another area in which countries can use icts to beneft
the fnal user is offering texting services via mobile pho-
ne, such as the Agro Messages System in Costa Rica, or
Mexicos Meteorological Risk Alert System. In addition,
electronic food safety certifcation programmes should
be established to facilitate the commercialization of
agricultural products.
Finally, digital literacy programmes must be established
and rural areas provided with adequate infrastructure for
the use of icts. In the majority of lac countries these
programmes are still in early stages.
110 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 111 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Support innovation to consolidate regional
development
Te development of agriculture is conditional on the
reduction in the innovation gap in lac with respect to
developed countries. To meet this challenge, innovation
should be targeted in the following areas: increased agri-
cultural productivity, value-added exportable products,
research in Family Farming to improve production sys-
tems, specialization of human resources for innovation
and job creation to absorb qualifed professionals and
prevent their migration, among others.
Policies to promote innovation will result in higher
production indices and incomes, the creation of new
technologies adapted to the reality of each countrys
agricultural sector, production systems that are environ-
mentally and socially sustainable, and decreased rates of
poverty and inequality.
Strengthen intraregional trade to develop the
agriculture sector in the region
In the current scenario of economic vulnerability and
food insecurity in many countries in the region, the
promotion of intraregional trade is one alternative to
overcome this situation. Greater trade between coun-
tries will enable them to have a more fuid and stable
food supply.
Trade is even more important considering the products
of Family Farming. To achieve an effective inclusion
of this sector in regional integration, Family Farming
organizations should be involved in trade negotiations,
ensuring that the interests of small producers are duly
considered.
It is also necessary to remove legal barriers that may
affect trade fows between countries. In this context,
it is crucial that countries concentrate efforts on the
elaboration of common agricultural policies, resulting
in greater regional integration. This will pave the way for
all countries to promote more equitable development
models.
Conclusions
Te food crisis has made it clear that the region is at a
turning point. Countries must deal with the negative
impacts of the current scenario and, at the same time,
progress in achieving the inclusive and sustainable de-
velopment of agriculture and food security. In practice,
this translates into the implementation of short-term
measures, which should gradually be replaced by policies
and long-term programmes.
Agricultural development depends on the implemen-
tation of integrated sectoral and extra-sectoral policies
adapted to the reality of each country. Although policies
may difer from one country to another, those aimed at
increasing participation in the development of policies
and programmes should focus on creating innovation
systems, improving existing institutions and developing
socially inclusive policies, including those aimed at Fa-
mily Farming.
Special attention should be paid to strengthening joint
programmes between countries, mainly in regards to
trade integration and the establishment of strategies and
coordinated policies for phytosanitary protection and
climate change mitigation and adaptation.
Each country must travel the road ahead according
to the reality of its own agriculture sector. Terefore,
it is up to each country to focus eforts on improving
public management and pooling eforts in pursuit of
the inclusive and sustainable development of agriculture
in the region
Section iv:
Land Tenure in
Latin America and
the Caribbean
113 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Land Tenure in Latin America and the
Caribbean
In search of new approaches to a complex structural dynamic
How to reconcile ownership of land used as a personal asset with land tenure as a
legitimate factor for inhabitants of rural areas seeking a sustainable livelihood in a
constantly changing and increasingly complex environment remains an unresolved issue.
It is compounded by the conceptual discussion concerning the land grabbing that is taking
place under a variety of ownership regimes and acquisition processes (buying, leasing
and contract farming). Are the existing legal and institutional frameworks adequate for
addressing these land tenure dynamics?
Changes in agrarian structure: The on-going pro- *
cess of structural change in agriculture in Latin
America and the Caribbean includes both land
concentration and an increase in smallholdings.
The old system of large estates based on semi-
feudal production relationships has given way
to large capitalist corporations that are part of
international trade circuits while smallholdings
are being broken up as they are sold or inherited.
In some countries, tensions between peasants
(landed and landless) and large landowners are
still running high. This phenomenon has been
linked to new issues, such as armed confict and
drug traffcking, which make governance of rural
society even more complex.
Irregular tenure: In most of the countries, many *
farms lack title to the land. This is particularly the
case in the countries of the Caribbean and along
the agricultural frontier in the countries of Central
America and South America. The situation is dis-
couraging investment, triggering social conficts
and making it impossible to devise appropriate land
management plans, among other constraints.
Land grabbing: The global shortage of land has *
sparked the interest of foreign countries and
major international corporations in buying land
in Latin America and the Caribbean in order to
ensure their future food supply. This process has
displaced the local population and given rise to
a new kind of large estate as well as territorial
sovereignty issues.
Cross-border movement of companies and *
agricultural producers: Trade integration at the
country level has prompted the spontaneous mo-
vement of agricultural frms and producers of all
sizes as they set up operations in neighbouring
countries to complement production processes
in their countries of origin (companies) or seek
new opportunities (farmers).
New indigenous identity: In many countries of *
the region, indigenous groups are pursuing land
claims as they use the political and legal process
to forge an indigenous identity. This has, among
other things, put indigenous peoples on a different
footing in society as they turn to ancestral rights
to claim land and resources.
The Facts
114 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 115 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Pressure of cities and industrial activities on far- *
mland: The advance of cities and land require-
ments for other activities (industry, commerce,
tourism, infrastructure) is causing a rapid loss of
land resources.
Generational change and the urbanization of *
society: The new opportunities offered by cities
have spurred rural youth migration at a time when
household heads are ageing. This trend poses new
challenges for revitalizing rural territories and en-
couraging young farmers who choose to live in
the countryside.
New role for rural space: Perceptions of ru- *
ral space and the role of agriculture have been
changing since the 1990s. A post-productivist
vision has emerged, grounded in the concept of
multi-functionality and seeking to provide goods
and services that go beyond the production of
food and fbres to encompass tourism, landscape
stewardship, recreation, crafts, commerce and
conservation of biodiversity, among others
Introduction
Te profound transformation of the global economy is
changing the terms of the discussion concerning the fu-
ture of agriculture in Latin America and the Caribbean.
Tere are many factors that are rapidly ushering in a new
phase: the fnancialization of the economy and its impact
on commodity price volatility; technological innova-
tion (information and communication technologies,
nanotechnologies, cognitive sciences) that is radically
changing production processes; the growing importance
of diet for human health; the new health risks caused
by globalization; the impact of climate change on agri-
culture; the need to feed 9 billion people by 2050; and
the impact that all of this will have on natural resources
are but some of the trends marking the transition to a
new economy.
Tis new phase is closely linked to serious environ-
mental degradation in the regions agricultural areas.
Pressure on land resources has greatly pushed back the
agricultural frontier in countries that still have vast ex-
tensions of forest and given rise to severe deforestation
and biodiversity loss.
17
Pressure on land in consolidated
agricultural areas has intensifed crop rotation, causing
erosion, salinization and fertility loss and the degrada-
tion of associated natural resources, notably water and
biodiversity.
Against this backdrop, the issue of land ownership and
use is also being redefned. Te old classifcations of
17 Concerning this trend, see the chapter on forests in this report. Concerning this trend, see the chapter on forests in this report.
smallholding versus large estate, domestic market ver-
sus external market, and lag versus modernization that
characterized the discussion about land in Latin Ame-
rica and the Caribbean have been replaced by another
paradigm that, of course, includes historical issues of
land access but goes further and is even more complex.
While this paradigm mirrors reality in each country and
subregion of Latin America and the Caribbean, there
are common traits that are found over and over again.
For the sake of analysis, the situation in the countries
of Latin America will be discussed separately from that
in the countries of the Caribbean because each of these
subregions has its own specifc agrarian history and other
geographical and cultural particularities.
Trends
The changing agrarian structure
Latin America has millions of small farms that coexist
with medium-sized and large operations. Together, they
form a highly heterogeneous agrarian structure that, by
reproducing asset distribution inequality, perpetuates
and exacerbates productivity gaps. Tis fact has been
at the core of the agrarian debate throughout the 20th
century and will surely continue to be central to the
public policy agenda and to the way that the discussion
on development in the region is framed.
Is structural transformation under way in Latin America?
It is hard to answer this question as it applies to agrarian
structure because many countries have not conducted
censuses of agriculture since the 1990s
18
and the informa-
tion that is available (such as agricultural and household
surveys and population censuses) does not yield conclu-
sive fndings, either because surveys are partial or because
population censuses do not gauge trends in production.
It is likely that some countries with a highly fragmented
agrarian structure dominated by smallholdings are seeing
an incipient restructuring that tends towards land con-
centration in search of greater proftability (economies
of scale) along with economic growth that can absorb
the rural population that is migrating to cities.
Tat is what can be deduced from Chiles recent Cen-
sus of Agriculture and Forestry, which shows that over
the past 10 years there was a 9% decrease in the total
number of farms in the census and declines of 20% in
some regions where modern, export-oriented agriculture
prevails (ine, 2007). Argentina has seen the same trend,
with the number of farms dropping by 20.8% between
1988 and 2002 (indec, 2009). In Brazil, the number
of farms fell by 10.7% between 1985 and 2006 (ibge,
2006). On the other hand, Mexicos recent Census of
Agriculture, Livestock and Forestry shows that between
1991 and 2007 the number of production units rose by
7.8% as the number of farms in the census increased
from 3.8 million to 4.1 million. Tese data show that
farms in Mexico continue to be subdivided as they are
sold or inherited, reducing the average area per produc-
tion unit from 8 hectares to 7.3 hectares (inegi, 2007;
De la Madrid, 2009). Uruguay has gone from a high of
86,928 farms in 1961 to 57,131 in 2000, with most of the
loss (96% of the decrease) concentrated in operations
with less than 99 hectares (Pieiro, 2011). Tis trend
has been accompanied by a sharp spike in the price of
land, from an average of us$448 per hectare in 2000 to
us$2,633 per hectare in 2010 (mgap, 2011). Te booming
land market makes it likely that fgures from the 2011
Census of Agriculture, when they become available, will
show that this trend is sharpening.
Data from Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Uruguay suggest
that a turning point may be approaching and will lead to
a diferent phase with new synergies between agriculture
18 The United Nations recommends conducting a census of agricul-
ture every 10 years, but parts of the region are lagging well behind. The
most recent census of agriculture was in 1970 in Colombia, 1984 in
Costa Rica and the Plurinational State of Bolivia and 1994 in Peru, to
give a fewexamples. Part of the lag is due to domestic confict (armed
confict in Peru during the 1990s and still ongoing in Colombia), as
well as to the lack of economic resources and technical capacities.
and urban economic activities like manufacturing and
services. Te fgures for Mexico show that the division
of land into increasingly smaller holdings is deepening.
Tese two trends provide a snapshot of the structural
dynamic of the market for land in Latin American agri-
culture.
Land access
What new factors should fgure into land and natural
resource tenure policy in the current context of Latin
America? After the agrarian reforms that took place in
Mexico (1910-28), Plurinational State of Bolivia (the
1950s), Cuba (1960s), Chile (1964-73), Peru (1970s), Ni-
caragua (1980s) and El Salvador (1980s), the issue has
resurfaced in the region, especially in Brazil and, to a
lesser extent, in the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and Paraguay (Baranyi
and others, 2004).
Since its return to democracy in 1985, Brazil has embar-
ked on an active agrarian reform including expropria-
tions, direct purchases, set-aside of public lands and legal
recognition of occupied lands. Te rationale for reform
has been the existence of a vast agricultural frontier,
numerous unproductive large estates and active social
movements fghting for land. Te idea of agrarian re-
form has solid political backing and support from the
urban middle classes, who see the process as a way to
bring about social reforms aimed at decreasing poverty
and growing the domestic market. As a result, 21.1 mi-
llion hectares were added to the land area covered by
agrarian reform between 1995 and 2002; 48.3 million
hectares were added between 2003 and 2010. During
the latter period the process benefted 614,093 families
in 3,551 settlements. Brazil currently has 85.8 million
hectares covered by its agrarian reform programme, with
924,263 families in 8,763 settlements managed by incra
(mda-incra, 2010). Agrarian reform policy is in line with
broader measures aimed at regulating the market for
land, which is one of the main agrarian issues in Brazil
because of the historical problems that the Brazilian State
has faced in addressing the high concentration of land
ownership (Gini index of 0.85), growing environmen-
tal degradation, rural and urban poverty, speculation
and illegal appropriation of public lands (Reydon and
Cornlio, 2006).
In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, the ongoing agra-
rian reform that began in the 1950s is regulated by the
new Law No. 3,545 on the community reorganization
116 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 117 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
of land reform improving the inra law passed in 1996,
which required that land tenure be demonstrated by the
social and economic function of the land (inra, 2010).
Te new law seeks to correct the distribution of land by
the state during 1953-1993, which distorted the original
sense of the reform. During this period, the Bolivian Sta-
te granted nearly 57 million hectares to new owners; 70%
went to business interests and medium-sized owners, and
the remaining 30% (17 million hectares) was granted to
peasants and indigenous communities. When the inra
Act of 1996 was coming into force, over the space of a
decade the government invested almost us$85 million
but only managed to transfer 9.3 million hectares. In
a three-year period under the new Law No. 3,545, at a
cost of us$35 million, the state titled an additional 31
million hectares, of which 13.6 million hectares have
been classed as public lands and 16.7 million hectares
have been transferred to small owners, rural workers
and indigenous peoples (inra, 2010). Title to 40 million
hectares of land has been regularized since 1996, allowing
for the transfer of more than 100,000 titles to the beneft
of 174,249 persons living in rural areas.
Te domestic confict in Colombia that has dragged
on for more than 40 years has created conditions for
one of the highest rates of human displacement in the
world and unquestionably the highest in the Americas
(abcolombia, 2011). Te confict impacts indigenous
communities, peasants of African descent, peasants in
general and a large rural population that is trapped bet-
ween far-right paramilitary groups, guerrillas and the
Colombian army. Because the confict is still unresolved,
displacement has become permanent and its magnitude
very hard to gauge. Figures from a number of sources put
the loss of land due to displacement at between 4 million
hectares and 10 million hectares involving vast expanses
of land that the actors in the confict regard as strategic.
Economic interests tied to these lands mobilize other
actors that, while not direct parties to the confict, are
drawn by the business opportunities they see and claim
the land for themselves. As a result, on land owned by
displaced persons the state has granted concessions for
mining (or other operations), or local and transnational
groups are using that land for their agribusiness inves-
tment projects. Recently, there has been a surge in oil
palm projects for producing biofuel.
In an efort to provide reparation to the victims of dis-
placement, the Colombian government passed Law No.
1,448 (the Victims and Land Restitution Law) in June
2011. Tis law, which will be applicable for 10 years, seeks
to restore 2.2 million hectares of land to the victims of
displacement occurring after 1985, at an approximate
cost of us$ 25 billion. It is expected to beneft one mi-
llion families. Te agency charged with restitution is the
Colombian Institute of Rural Development (incoder),
whose Strategic Plan 2010-2014 reads as follows concer-
ning land restitution: the policy seeks comprehensive ma-
nagement of the restitution of rights to land and territories
by means of comprehensive, free assistance for the victims
of dispossession and is thus part of broad-based reparations.
Te objectives of this policy contribute to the social and eco-
nomic re-establishment of the population of victims of forced
displacement by violence (pvdfv). As property is restored or
families compensated, the other policies will be coordina-
ted in search of lasting solutions that ensure all rights. In
addition, preferential access to land for the population of
victims of forced displacement by violence will continue to
be promoted by means of subsidies (incoder, 2012).
In 2001, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela passed
the Land and Agricultural Development Law aimed at
modernizing the old agrarian reform law dating back to
the 1960s. Te main purpose of the law is to regularize
idle land held by the state or private parties who are
occupying it illegallyespecially large landholders
and redistribute it among landless peasants committed
to its productive use. Te law also aims to regularize
land occupied and worked by peasants without clear
title.
19
In addition, the law seeks to ensure diversity, en-
force environmental and agro-food protection rights
and ensure food security (Ofcial Gazette of the Boliva-
rian Republic of Venezuela, 2001). Te new law created
three institutions: the National Land Institute (inti),
the Venezuelan Agrarian Corporation and the National
Institute of Rural Development. Te frst of the three
is charged with regulating and granting title to land.
Some conceptual imprecisions of this frst body of law
necessitated a new reform in 2010, the Law for Partial
Reform of the Land and Agrarian Development Law. It
broadened the role of the state, which can take on pro-
duction functions directly. Moreover, Article 145 notes
that the executive branch can directly assume primary
production, industrialization, distribution, exchange
19 The land use evaluation and adjudication systemis the core of the
new agrarian regime. It is based on three basic levels of productiv-
ity: idle or uncultivated land; improvable land; and productive land.
Idle or uncultivated land may be subject to intervention or agrarian
expropriation, and it is taxed. The idea behind these measures is to
return idle land to production (Offcial Gazette No. 37,323, Decree
No. 1,546, 2001)
and commercialization functions in order to consoli-
date and ensure food sovereignty. According to Article
1, the objective is to eliminate tertiarization and large
estates
20
as systems that are contrary to justice, equality,
the general interest and social peace in the countryside,
ensuring biodiversity, food security and the enforcement of
food and agro-food protection rights for present and future
generations (Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, 2010).
In the space of a decade, according to data provided by
inti, 7,782,045 hectares have been regularized to date,
directly benefting 224,700 families.
Another strategy for addressing the issue of land access
involves land funds, promoted primarily by the World
Bank. Teir objective is to provide credit for purchasing
land to small buyers who would not normally be able to
tap the capital markets. Land funds promote voluntary
land transactions where governments mediate between
buyers and sellers in an efort to keep the price of land
from increasing artifcially. To do so, they support the
subdivision of large extensions and disseminate price
information among market agents in order to make these
transactions more transparent. Tere have been experien-
ces of this kind in Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Guatemala,
El Salvador, Honduras and Mexico. Such funds, which
have also been referred to as market-assisted land reforms
or community-based land reforms, have been criticized
for their high cost and the fact that they address the
situation for just a very small number of benefciaries.
In addition, in El Salvador these instruments have been
used to locate ex-combatants who participated in the
civil war in the 1980s. All of this indicates that these
experiences are not replicable on a large scale. Indeed,
the land granted in Guatemala (fontierra), El Salvador
(ptt), Honduras (pacta) and Chile (conadi-fta) com-
bined adds up to 193,600 hectares, with 46,969 grantee
families (Sotomayor, 2008).
conadi in Chile provides a good example of the li-
mitations of such a strategy. Following restoration of
the democratic process, October 1993 brought passage
of Law No. 19,253 that, among other measures, put
20 Tertiarization is defned as any agriculture-oriented use of land
whereby a third party is granted the right to use the land or mandated
to work the land, or any form or legal business, paid or otherwise,
whereby the party claiming ownership of the land uses it through a
third party or transfers it in usufruct to a third party. Large estates are
therefore defned as any extension of land exceeding the average for
the region or failing to reach 80% of ideal yield (Article 7, Law for
Partial Reform of the Land and Agrarian Development Law).
an end to the transfer of indigenous lands to non-
indigenous persons, created a Land and Water Fund
(fta) and the National Corporation for Indigenous
Development (conadi), charged with implementing
development policies and programmes for indigenous
peoples. From 1994 to date, conadi has purchased
and transferred 121,289 hectares to 9,287 indigenous
families through the land fund, at a cost of us$293
million, paying an average of us$2,416 per hectare.
conadi has regularized, cleared title to or transferred
another 56,678 hectares of public lands and granted
subsidies to individuals (or indigenous communities)
enabling them to purchase another 28,738 hectares du-
ring the period (estimate based on data from fta and
conadi). Under the three transfer mechanisms, then,
a total of 206,705 hectares has been recovered over a
17-year period (conadi, 2012).
Insecure tenure
According to some estimates, approximately 50% of the
regions farmers lack secure title to their land (Lpez
and Valds, 1997). In Brazil, just 50.9% of the countrys
total land area has been covered by cadastral surveys
(mda-incra, 2006). Tat is why experts agree that secure
land tenure is important for agrarian development in
Latin America. A proper description of land resources
(cadastres) provides information on their amount, lo-
cation, quality and value. Besides reducing information
asymmetries in the land market and contributing to land
tenure regularization programmes, cadastres generate
positive externalities (taxes, competitiveness and land
management, for example) that warrant their being a
government priority. Secure tenure depends on legal
systems that are capable of ensuring property rights ex-
peditiously and impartially. Legal security of land tenure
is indispensable for obtaining credit, ensuring inves-
tment stability, managing natural resources properly
and developing a healthy market for selling, leasing and
conducting other land transactions.
Secure tenure is a more manageable challenge for go-
vernments than the issue of land access is. Tis can be
seen in the many land titling projects in recent decades
promoted by the idb and the World Bank in most of
the countries of the region. Operational improvements
to such projects over the past few years include the use
of modern, efcient and equitable methodologies in
titling, particularly the sweep campaigns that enable
feld missions to beneft from economies of scale in a
comprehensive cadastral mapping, titling and legal re-
118 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 119 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
cordation process. Te new approaches also call for re-
quiring, without exception, recording titles in the public
registry, and they seek the modernization of public regis-
try and cadastral institutions. Even so, much remains to
be done in this sphere because these processes are costly
and because land ownership conficts make it difcult
to identify owners.
Land grabbing
Another concern involving land in Latin America and
elsewhere in the world is land purchasing by indivi-
duals, major foreign corporations and some countries
interested in expanding their natural resource base. A
recent fao study for Latin America and the Caribbean
concluded that this is a new phenomenon and that it
is still small in scope because it is limited to the larger
countries of the region (Brazil and Argentina). However,
land concentration and growing foreign tenure have
soared since the 1960s (fao, 2012).
Te extent of land grabbing varies across the countries
of the region. Distinguishing features include: (i) the
large amount of private land involved; (ii) the key role
of national elites as the main investors; (iii) extensive
involvement of intraregional Latin American frms (the
trans-Latins) and conventional transnational companies;
(iv) the minimal impact that the Persian Gulf countries,
China, Republic of Korea and India are having on the
regions public and private land market despite their
being among the main investors elsewhere in the world;
and (v) the presence of land grabbing in countries that
would not be considered as fragile or weak from an
institutional viewpoint (characteristics that are regar-
ded as generally favourable to land grabbing by some
observers) (Borras and others, 2012).
Land grabbing can take place under a variety of land
ownership regimes (private, State-owned or communal),
agro-ecological conditions and locations (ranging from
prime working farmland, peri-urban areas and remote
rural land to land in frontier areas) and acquisition
mechanisms (purchasing, leasing, contract farming and
value-chain capture). For international comparison
purposes, this is not an exclusive matter (that is, the
land involved in transactions can be either privately- or
State-owned). Rather, there tend to be diferences of
degree within each category. In this context, transac-
tions involving privately-owned land are probably more
common in Latin America and the Caribbean than
in other regions of the world, where there is a higher
concentration in the general category of State-owned
(public) lands.
Te formal nationality of land grabbers varies and can
occasionally be unclear or hard to determine. In this re-
gard, there are four kinds of land grabbers: international;
(trans) Latin American; national; and undetermined.
Tis latter category includes companies with investors
whose nationality is, for the most part, difcult to de-
termine. Many of them are headquartered in the regions
tax havens. Te transnational dimension of land deals is
a substantial one, although foreign governments are not
usually directly involved (some negotiations are carried
out at the request of the government, but, aside from
deals in Brazil and Argentina, these are specifc, incipient
cases). Intraregional (transnational) land transactions
involving (trans) Latin frms perhaps account for the
bulk of land deals in the region or are, at least, the most
obvious trend to date. Last, the role and involvement
of national elites (many of whom have links, to varying
degrees, to international capital) are signifcant and
even predominant in many of the countries of the
region. Compared with other parts of the world, the
region difers from the processes seen in Africa, where
transnational (transregional) deals predominate and are
commonplace. Circumstances in Latin America and the
Caribbean are more like those in South-East Asia.
Land grabbing not only aims to increase food output,
especially beef. It is taking place in the incipient food,
forage and fuel triad (fex crops in the 3-in-1 complex)
and in non-food sectors (specifcally, industrial forestry
production and large-scale conservation projects). Tis
conclusion is a far cry from the predominant general
opinion that ties the global land rush mainly, albeit not
exclusively, to the food price spike of 2007 and 2008.
Land purchases are also for environmental services,
tourism and conservation projects (especially, Patago-
nia in Argentina and Chile) and for opening potential
access to mining and energy resources. As noted above,
land grabbing in the region is taking place in countries
that do not match the standard profle of an institu-
tionally fragile or weak State. Political conditions in
Brazil and Argentina (the two countries with the most
land grabbing in the region) are strikingly diferent,
but both countries have a well-organized State. Te
same can be said of other countries, like Chile and
Uruguay.
Te change in land use has been multidirectional. In
the food sector, for example, there is land that is no
longer used for growing food and is now used for forage
or fuels. Land that was not being used for farming or
forestry had begun to be used for growing food, forage
and fuel for export. Natural forests have been turned into
industrial forestry operations. It is not always the case
that land formerly used for growing food or producing
wood for national or domestic consumption is switched
to growing food and non-food products for the external
market. Tis type of land use sparks the most objections.
Such a wide range of land use is seen in other regions,
as well, such as Africa, Asia and the Eurasian States of
the former Soviet Union.
One noteworthy feature of land concentration and
growing foreign ownership are the channels that reveal
a certain porosity of expanding land tenure among the
countries of the region.
Tere are three channels for intraregional expansion,
depending on the resources mobilized. In all cases the
capacity to deal with the issues involved depends on the
capabilities accumulated in the country, which in many
cases are limited.
Trough trans-Latin companies, which mobilize capital
and technology and just a few executives. Te specifc
advantages in the case at hand (Chilean forestry com-
panies) are tax exemptions, the possibility of acquiring
signifcant extensions of land, and a guaranteed lack
of social conficts (indigenous populations in southern
Chile).
Trough a combination of land ownership and leasing
(planting pools in Argentina), which mobilizes organi-
zation and management models and complex software,
as well as funding and technology, and seeks alliances
with local groups. Te specifc advantages have to do
with protecting producers from government-imposed
quotas and with providing a kind of crop insurance that
diversifes weather risk by buying or leasing land in se-
veral diferent countries.
Trough migration (Brazil, Plurinational State of Bo-
livia and Paraguay), which mobilizes resources for bu-
ying land, operating capital and entrepreneurship. Te
specifc advantages lie in the fact that the selling price
of land in the country of origin can make it possible
to double the area purchased, and ties to the country
of origin can be maintained, even through technology
networks.
Cross-border movement of agricultural com-
panies and producers
Ofshoring agriculture is a long-standing trend that
is, however, gathering momentum (fao, 2012; Dirven,
2012). Te main migration fow is associated with the
massive movement of Brazilian farmers towards Para-
guay, Uruguay, Argentina and the Plurinational State of
Bolivia. Land settlement in Brazil has gone through sta-
ges once the population was established in coastal areas.
After the central and north-eastern parts of the country
were settled, the process gradually shifted to southern
Brazil, which is much narrower. Settlers thus quickly
reached the border areas with Uruguay, Paraguay and
Argentina. Because these areas were only sparsely settled
in the 1970s, it was natural for large Brazilian growers
to set up operations there. Tey were followed by a vast
contingent of rural workers. Te process intensifed in
the 1980s until it reached the levels seen today. It is in
Paraguay where local farmers make up the largest group,
as they are substantially involved in cattle-raising and
the soybean boom in mercosur. Paraguay received the
largest number of small and medium-sized farmers, drawn
by the abundant availability of land. Tey also arrived in
Argentina and Uruguay, in smaller proportions because
not much land was available and it was not very cheap.
Te triple interaction of agro-industrial modernization,
the gradual closing of the agricultural frontier and relati-
vely fexible control of the movement of persons led to the
emergence of large contingents of itinerant workers who
foated from one country to another across broad border
strips (Galeano, 1997). By deforesting new land, settling
the territory and developing a battery of services, the
Brazilians have consolidated a large-scale, highly mecha-
nized and poorly diversifed model that has changed the
countrys production landscape and economy.
Despite Argentinas laws banning foreigners from sett-
ling in border areas, many small Brazilian farmers have
illegally set up operations there. But they have not ra-
dically changed the local economy. Tis is not the case
in Uruguay, which is exposed to double pressure from
Brazil and Argentina.
In the Plurinational State of Bolivia, one of the most
recent cross-border movements started in the region
of Santa Cruz and surged towards the end of the 20th
century. Te region of Santa Cruz is one of the richest
in the Plurinational State of Bolivia; over the past two
decades it has grown faster than the country as a whole.
Much of this growth is due to a boom in farming, which
120 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 121 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
accounts for 56% of the provinces foreign trade. Its main
products are oilseeds, sugar, leather, wood, cotton and
oils and alcohol products (Urioste, 2011). Modern agro-
industrial operations in the low-lying areas of the region
have replaced traditional peasant farming concentrated
in the valleys and the Andean altiplano, expanding the
agricultural frontier from 413,320 hectares in 1990 to
1,821,631 hectares in 2007. Of this total, it is estimated
that approximately 1 million hectares correspond to the
soybean complex
21
and the rest to other crops. As a result,
66% of the 2.7 million hectares under cultivation in the
country are concentrated in the region of Santa Cruz
(Urioste, 2011).
As noted above, much of the agriculture boom is di-
rectly related to the expansion of soybean growing, where
owners from Brazil have been among the main actors.
Tey arrived in the Plurinational State of Bolivia in three
waves. Te smallest was in the late 1980s; the largest was
in 1993-1999, when the government of the Plurinational
State of Bolivia was promoting the Eastern Lowlands
Project for developing highly productive land and infras-
tructure, which expanded the supply of fertile land at a
low price (Urioste, 2011). Another wave of Brazilian im-
migration started in 2005; this time it was not so much
limited to the soybean business but rather to the search
for land for cattle-raising (Urioste, 2011). In addition to
Brazilians, there are reports of an equally large infux
of Argentinean nationals in recent years. However, it
is not known whether they are fows from businesses
with operations in Argentina or Brazil, individuals, or
a combination of the two (Urioste, 2011).
Albeit to a lesser degree, the selective installation of
Chilean companies in Peru and Argentina is another
signifcant trend. Unlike emigration from Brazil and Ar-
gentina, this movement is more limited in scope because
it involves medium-to-large export-oriented companies.
In the case of Peru, these companies are exporters of fresh
fruit seeking to capitalize on the competitive advanta-
ges of the Peruvian coast in terms of the cost of land
and labour and, especially, the potential for expanding
their range of of-season products to complement their
production cycle. Investments in the agriculture sector
are still small, however; according to ofcial data they
total approximately us$82 million from 1990 to date and
account for just 0.7% of the total foreign direct inves-
21 Soybean output grew seven-fold between 1990 and 2009; invest-
ment between 1989 and 1999 is estimated to have reached us$2 billion
(Montenegro, cited by Urioste).
tment (fdi) capital fow from Chile to Peru (direcon,
2012). Even so, this trend, while incipient, is likely to
deepen. For example, the Chilean frm Verfrut recently
acquired 1,200 hectares in the Papayo area of the Piura
region and plans to invest nearly us$20 million in the
new facilities (Diario la Repblica, 2012). Argentina is
the primary recipient of fdi from Chile; the us$1,025
million invested from 1990 to date in the agricultural
sector represents 6.3% of the countrys total fdi infows.
Tat investment has come mainly from grape-growing
and wine-producing companies seeking to expand their
range of appellation wines by incorporating new pro-
duction areas, especially in Mendoza province. Via
Concha y Toro is Chiles largest wine exporter; in 2011
its Argentinean subsidiaries Trivento Bodegas y Viedos
S.A, Finca Lunlunta S.A. and Finca Austral S.A. posted
us$55 million in sales (Via Concha y Toro, 2011).
Another emerging trend is the acquisition of land for
forestry in Argentina, Uruguay and Brazil. Chiles largest
forestry group, Empresas Arauco,
22
has 127,290 hectares
of tree plantations in Argentinas Misiones Province,
73,561 hectares in the Arapoti region of Paran State in
Brazil, and 67,897 hectares in Uruguay (owned 50-50
with the Stora Enso group). Tese holdings account
for 12.6%, 7.3% and 6.7%, respectively, of Araucos to-
tal forestry plantations. Te frm owns another 373,573
hectares of native forest set aside for conservation, 30%
in Argentina, 16% in Brazil and 1.9% in Uruguay. Of the
companys total forest assets (native forests and forestry
plantations), 257,705 hectares (15.7%) are in Argentina,
155,455 hectares (9.5%) are in Brazil and 127,234 hectares
(7.7%) are in Uruguay. Globally, its forest assets overseas
amount to 33% of the total, highlighting how important
these investments are for the companys strategic plans.
Just to cite an example, 14.6% of its operating income
is from its subsidiaries Forestal Alto Paran, Nuestra
Seora de Carmen and Leasing Forestal in Argentina
(Empresas Arauco, 2010).
Chiles second largest forestry group, in terms of forest
assets, is Compaa Manufacturera de Papeles y Car-
tones (cmpc).
23
Tis company manages its forest assets
22 Celulosa Arauco, founded in 1970, is controlled by Empresas
Copec S.A. Its sales for fscal 2010 totalled us$ 3.788 billion, of which
us$227 million was generated by its subsidiary Industrias Forestales
S.A., located in Argentina. In addition to pulp, the company produces
lumber and wood panels.
23 This frm, founded in 1920, recorded us$4.797 billion in sales in
through its subsidiary Forestal Mininco and currently
has foreign holdings in Brazil and Argentina. Its forest
assets in these two countries combined total 307,387 hec-
tares, of which 94,283 hectares are in Corrientes Province
in Argentina and 213,104 hectares are in the state of Rio
Grande do Sul in Brazil (cmpc, 2011).
Tese companies are setting up operations abroad be-
cause they need to expand their domestic market and are
seeking to become relevant players in the global market.
To meet the growing demand caused by this opening
(especially in the form of new inputs for the markets of
Asia), these frms have had to expand their tree planta-
tions into neighbouring countries because of the limited
room for expansion in their home countries. In addition,
building plants abroad helps maintain a structure of
proximity between sources of raw materials, plants and
the main export ports.
New indigenous identity
Historical claims of indigenous peoples to their terri-
tories, occupied since the Spanish conquest and colo-
nization, are a relatively new and especially complex
issue. Part of the complexity lies in the fact that these
territories no longer exist as such because they are part of
new states, regions, provinces and the many other sub-
divisions that make up the Americas, where indigenous
peoples coexist with a non-indigenous population led
there by the twists and turns of history. Adding to this
complex picture are ethnic groups who live as hunter-
gatherers roaming the Amazon jungle,
24
where borders
are ill-defned, sparking conficts with non-indigenous
population groups that are interested in working the
area for economic reasons.
Is it possible to settle the historical debt with indigenous
peoples and protect their rights to territories that used
to be theirs? Is it possible to tap the natural resources
of territories where indigenous peoples are living? In-
ternational Labour Organization Convention No. 169,
adopted in 1989, deals with the rights of indigenous and
tribal peoples in independent countries and establishes
the following for the ratifying governments (Article14.1):
2011. Its main products are pulp, paper and cardboard, lumber and
wood panels.
24
The Amazon region has an estimated 33 million inhabitants, of
which an indigenous population estimated at 1.6 million belongs to
370 different peoples.
Te rights of ownership and possession of the peoples concer-
ned over the lands which they traditionally occupy shall be
recognised. In addition, measures shall be taken in appro-
priate cases to safeguard the right of the peoples concerned
to use lands not exclusively occupied by them, but to which
they have traditionally had access for their subsistence and
traditional activities. Particular attention shall be paid to
the situation of nomadic peoples and shifting cultivators
in this respect.
Article 14 specifcally recognizes the rights of ownership
to land being used by indigenous communities or to
which they have traditionally had access. On a practical
level, however, this has not been easy to implement.
Tere are still clashes and points of great confict with
the non-indigenous population, businesses and States.
Te agrarian reforms launched in Latin America in the
20th century have brought partial reparation for indi-
genous peoples who were dispossessed of their lands.
Although these reforms were not aimed at resolving the
issue of indigenous peoples access to land but rather at
solving the problem of landless peasants in general,
25
they had a positive impact for indigenous groups because
many of them were landless (Aylwin, 2002). But the
issue of access to land and preservation of indigenous
territory is far from being resolved. Te discourse on
territoriality that runs through the claims made by in-
digenous movements essentially appeals to their political
nature and is grounded in an alternative political project
with legal, economic and cultural repercussions. In this
context, then, the issue of territory goes well beyond
the matter of land access to become a triad combining
territory, identity and autonomy.
Another new dimension further complicates the issue.
Part of the discourse of environmentalist groups grants
indigenous peoples the authority to preserve and manage
natural resources, which makes the matter of territory a
more global issue and brings into question the current
model of development and private working of natural
resources. Territorial claims by indigenous populations
25 Brazil would be an exception because since 1910 the National
Indian Foundation (funai) has been legally mandated to protect in-
digenous land. The service established legal grounds for recognizing
Indians in order to bring them into the institutional framework of
the new republic that was being built. However, because the land was
regarded as unclaimed (vacant), much of the indigenous land was ap-
propriated by non-indigenous populations, especially after the advent
of the military dictatorship in 1964 (Aylwin, 2002).
122 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 123 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
therefore have a diferent meaning than those arising
from landed or landless rural communities concerning
access to and better distribution of land.
Agricultural use versus urban or industrial
use
Tis is a key issue because it has several connotations.
On the one hand, agricultural land is being lost as it is
put to use for urban or service purposes. On the other
hand, urban expansion often afects agribusinesses and
livestock herds
26
in areas that were historically rural but
have become peri-urban. Tis sparks confict between
agricultural businesses and their new neighbours over
odours, vectors and other issues. Indeed, the very con-
cept of peri-urban dating from the 1970s has had to be
redefned to take into account the impact of globaliza-
tion on urban dispersion, which is, in Latin America,
based on a spatial model with megacities and regional
cities (Snchez, 2009), where new and diverse economic
activities (especially services) develop, a new urban and
transport infrastructure is built and functions are decen-
tralized as they come under the purview of medium-sized
and smaller cities. Te geographic limits of the periphery
(dominated by the infuence of the big city) are not
well defned, and agricultural areas undergo a profound
transformation towards patterns of discontinuous use of
urban and rural land (Snchez, 2009).
In this context, the spread of the urban
27
into rural spaces
can trigger conficts that vary in level and scale and in-
volve families, neighbourhoods and communities, where
26 The opposite is also often the case. Agro-industrial frms operat-
ing in peri-urban areas or close to cities can seriously harm the well-
being of people if the environmental impact of their activities is not
appropriately regulated. One current case involves the frmAgrosuper,
which put the worlds largest swine herd (more than 400,000 pigs)
in the locality of Freirina, in Huasco Province in Chiles Atacama
Region. There were problems with controlling foul odour from pig
manure. The wind carried the nauseating odour over a 50-kilometre
radius and drove the local population into heated confrontations with
the company and with the regional authorities, forcing the central
government to temporarily shut down the companys slaughtering
operations (Diario Financiero, 2012).
27 Studies of peri-urban spaces have focused on the following issues:
(a) changes in land use and the consumption of space; (b) social
change; (c) land ownership regimes; (d) specifcity and conversion of
peri-urban agriculture; and (e) peri-urban space as a territorial heritage,
and preservation of identity (Snchez, 2009).
the core issue tends to be competition over the use of
land for residential or agricultural purposes. One of the
burning issues in the region involving peri-urban areas
(especially those that are being used for agriculture) is
land market speculation driven by pressure from the real
estate sector, among other factors.
A landmark case in this regard is the property develo-
pment currently taking place in the green belt of the
city of Buenos Aires, particularly in the Pilar district.
Urban sprawl has brought with it enclosed urban spa-
ces, condominiums, ofce compounds, smart buildings,
shopping malls, private universities, gastronomic poles,
hotels, convention centres, boutique clinics, private ce-
meteries and automobile dealerships that have com-
pletely transformed the territorial space (Barsky and
Vio, 2007). Tis has put enormous pressure on the use
of land, especially agricultural land where many small
vegetable and fower farms are run by Bolivians who
began to settle in the peri-urban belt in the early 1970s.
Pressure on land ownership sparked market speculation
leading to price diferences of as much as 1000% in a
radius of just a few kilometres and adding to the already
tenuous position of the vegetable farms, especially those
run by Bolivians (39% of all of the registered farms in the
province). According to the 2001 census of horticulture
in the province of Buenos Aires, Bolivians lease 88% of
the farms they run and own just 12%.
Changes in land use also encourage business sectors to
turn to the environmental impact assessment system to
resolve conficts between economic agents and/or the
local population over a territory or production area even
if the area is not zoned for that purpose. A number of
regulations for preventing the loss of land resources are
currently under discussion in Latin America. Among
the many issues being debated in Chile are the role of
government agencies in authorizing changes in land use
(binding local participation required), the spatial plan-
ning regime (master plans as a factor in defning the ob-
jective image of a given territory), minimum subdivision
lot size (0.5 hectares at present versus 2 hectares) and
building authorizations (limits on construction density),
the role of government agencies, and other factors. Whi-
le some countries have a planning mechanism, public
and private actors in the region need to more carefully
think through the land use planning policies in place in
order to arrive at technical criteria that will go beyond
reactive approaches and thus make it possible to address
increasingly complex situations as the pressure on land
resources grows.
Generational change and the urbanization of
society
Te rural population of Latin America has declined stea-
dily over the past few decades. In the 1970s it accounted
for 43% of the total population. According to estimated
projections from celade, by 2010 it had fallen to less
than half of that fgure (20%); the rural population is
expected to stabilize in the area of 11% towards 2050.
However, the situation varies widely from one country to
another. In 2010, Uruguay had the smallest rural popu-
lation percentage (8%) and Honduras the largest, at 42%
(cepalstat, 2012). A large part of this contingent has
migrated to the main urban centres in search of better
job opportunities and living conditions in general; this
trend is very likely to continue. According to a recent
study (Rodrguez and Meneses, 2011), even though the
indicators of rural population access to basic social ser-
vices have improved in regard to literacy, universal edu-
cation and access to utilities, this has not narrowed the
gaps between the rural world and the urban one. Tis is
especially the case in areas where indigenous populations
live, where the changes have been less marked.
Changes in the sphere of production have also had a
strong impact. Te modernization of agriculture has
led agribusinesses to locate operations along the urban
frontier, boosting the growth of agricultural employment
among residents of urban areas. Climbing agricultural
productivity has spurred the growth of non-agricultural
activities in rural areas; one example is rural tourism. All
of these changes have blurred the frontier between urban
and rural, a trend that is most clearly seen in densely
populated rural areas and calls for new policy approaches
for adapting to this new reality.
A new role for rural space
Te concept of multifunctional rural spaces is not as well
established in Latin America as it is in the countries of the
European Union (and other developed countries), but
there is in the region a clear trend towards a broader view
of what is traditionally seen as rural. At a conceptual level,
this takes the form of the rural territorial development
policies that have been promoted since the early 1990s
(Seplveda and others, 2003; Schejtman and Berdegu,
2007) and given rise to countless experiences in territorial
and local development. Tis approach has stressed social
participation and the development of new economic
activities that go beyond the limits of traditional agricul-
ture to encourage tourism, commerce, crafts, small-scale
industry, environmental services and peri-urban agricul-
ture, among others, in order to address the land constra-
ints faced by many rural population segments. Te result
has been multisectoral intervention programmes aimed
at improving the management of invested resources in
order to fght poverty and foster economic development.
Examples include the Central-American Strategy for Te-
rritorial Rural Development (ecadert, 2009) and the
Territories of Citizenship programme created in Brazil
in 2008 (Federal Government, 2009).
Outlook
Land and resource concentration and foreign ownership
have increased markedly since the 1960s, when the need
for agrarian reforms was widely justifed. Tis trend is
likely to deepen further over the coming years, enhan-
cing the dual nature of the agrarian structure of Latin
America and the Caribbean that has made the region
the most socially unequal in the world.
Te market for land will continue to see structural chan-
ge along two main trends. Te frst, more general one
is the fragmentation of the agrarian structure in some
countries (Mexico and, probably, some Andean and
Central American countries) and concentration of the
structure (declining number of farms) in others (Brazil,
Chile, Argentina and Uruguay). Te other trend is that,
beyond the general dynamic (at the country level), frag-
mentation of rural ownership will continue, as owners-
hip grows more concentrated in medium-sized and large
holdings. In some countries (such as the Plurinational
State of Bolivia, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela
and Brazil) the agrarian reform processes under way
will probably give landless peasants and smallholders
access to land. In other countries with a high degree
of concentration and recurrent land conficts (such as
Paraguay), there seems to be no medium-term prospect
for access to land by landless peasants, meaning that land
ownership concentration will persist.
Te historical debt of Latin American societies with
their indigenous peoples has brought back the issue of
access to land for indigenous groups while casting it in
a diferent light. Indigenous groups are self-identifying
as peoples and claiming their former territories, the right
to the resources found there, and full autonomy and
governance. Tis new discourse, which is increasingly
embraced by ethnic groups in the region, will be a source
of constant tension for national States, especially those
with a large indigenous population.
124 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 125 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Concentration is likely to come with further degrada-
tion of the rural environment, bringing into question
the viability of the regions agro-export model and, on
a deeper level, jeopardizing the very foundations of the
economic system and contemporary society. Tis poses
an enormous challenge for the regions agricultural pro-
ducers, agribusinesses and governments, which need to
take preventive measures.
Tis record suggests that multiple forces will bring about
a paradigm shift. Te problem of land is far more com-
plex today than in the past and calls for new approaches
to address it. Tis new paradigm will not eliminate the
problem of access to and distribution of land, but it will
redefne, reframe and reorganize the issue within a new
system. In other words, it will link this issue to other
emerging ones and, in so doing, make new approaches
possible.
To face this issue it will be necessary to tie this trend with
other, more general ones in society. For one, the spread of
interdependence and feedback in all domains (economy,
ecology, social equilibriums and political stability) will
turn land conficts and local environmental problems
into global challenges. Meanwhile, the dematerializa-
tion of the economy associated with the development
of information and communications technologies and
other technologies will turn symbol manipulation and
data into new forces of production.
Policy recommendations
Tese trends and prospects call for more sophisticated
and integrated public policies that allow for a new appro-
ach to the issue of land in the region.
First of all, natural resources must no longer be regarded
as inexhaustible, and they must be factored into the
economic equation by means of new parameters that
take account of the physical dimension of production
activities (extraction of resources, accumulation of waste
and transformation of ecosystems, among others). Tere
is also a need to intervene at multiple levels of organi-
zation (local, regional, national and international) with
regulations to protect the environment. Of particular
note on the international level is the recent endorsement,
by the fao Committee on World Food Security, of the
Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance
of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the Context
of National Food Security (fao, 2012). Te guidelines
establish universal criteria for appropriate management
of this problem and are the frst global instrument to
address land tenure and governance.
Access to land needs to be maintained and deepened;
small-scale agriculture should be identifed as a special
case and targeted by diferential, broad-based public
policies encompassing land distribution, technical assis-
tance, irrigation, associativity, infrastructure and credit,
among others. Tere is also a pressing need for more far-
reaching policy measures aimed at the regularization of
land titles. Tis will require generating information from
land cadastres, designing legal systems that guarantee
property rights and implementing land titling projects
to regularize ownership for thousands of small farmers
who are living on their land on a de facto basis.
Family agriculture has strategic importance in the eco-
nomy, as do small and medium-sized enterprises in
general. In a plural economy, consolidating these two
segments requires building a solidary, associative sector
of the economy that is, as an important factor for global
economic and social stability, in the general interest.
Such policies should also operate on a symbolic level: the
magnitude of the task is such that the market forces have
to be harnessed in order to achieve more equality, social
inclusion and environmental sustainability. Tis will
require diferentiating between small-scale rural produc-
tion and sustainable production, using seals of quality.
Heightened ethical, social and ecological concerns are
a recent development, as consumers grow increasingly
aware of how businesses behave and how the products
they buy in the market are made. For those who are part
of this trend, price loses its substance and is no longer
the only parameter for diferentiating a good product
from a bad one. Managing this awareness in line with
ecological and social goals is a space for action that holds
great potential for the new agricultural policies.
In the immaterial economy, history, geography, ethnic
identity, territories and cultural and landscape heritage
ofer new spaces for creating economic value. To attain
these objectives, that heritage must be assigned a value
by means of public and private policies for maintaining
and improving it using seals and cultural brands enabling
consumers and citizens in general to identify them.
Te same is true for land and resource claims by indi-
genous peoples. Although there are some similarities
between the challenges faced by small farmers and indi-
genous peoples involving agriculture and the economy,
land access issues have a meaning of their own that is
associated with the recovery of indigenous territories and
autonomy. Handling these claims appropriately requires
spaces for dialogue and agreement with central gover-
nments and, above all, compliance with international
agreements on the protection of indigenous peoples such
as ilo Convention No. 169. But this dialogue should
not be limited to the sphere of government. It should be
expanded to the rest of civil society so that it is society
as a whole that converges on solutions for claims by
indigenous peoples, so that they are ensured of support
over the long run. Tis dialogue should yield a broad
array of policy measures validated by all stakeholders and
aimed at imbuing the reform and development process
with lasting legitimacy and sustainability.
All of these initiatives involve strengthening institu-
tions and developing new regulatory frameworks for
preserving the environment, planning land use and
regulating the purchase of land by States and foreign
companies as well as cross-border movements. To this
end, it is essential to have up-do-date information on
what is really happening in rural areas by conducting
regular censuses of agriculture, both for understanding
the dynamics of structural change and for identifying
agricultural producers a requisite for implementing
appropriate public policies.
As for land grabbing per se, there is a need to build
follow-up and monitoring capacities in each country
and at the regional level, and to design national and in-
ternational regulations to prevent the acquisition of large
tracts of land for purely private purposes through deals
that are neither transparent nor involve the participation
of all stakeholders. Such measures are essential for avoi-
ding the political criticism and social conficts that will
just generate legal uncertainty for these investments.
To address the issue of urbanization of rural spaces, the
concepts of urban, rural and peri-urban must frst be
redefned to take account of recent developments con-
cerning the new economic functions of rural spaces (in-
frastructure, services, scenic beauty and environmental
functions, among others) and the role of medium-sized
cities in enhancing rural life. Te regions rural muni-
cipalities need to implement land-use plans refecting
a more mature policy approach that will be crucial for
avoiding the problems that are certain to arise without
adequate planning.
Last, more robust programmes are needed to encourage
young people to settle in rural areas so that in 20 or 30
years their decision to continue living in a rural setting
will be the result of a lifestyle choice instead of some-
thing imposed by inherited circumstances like it is now.
Te challenge lies in renewing the human resources that
work the farms so that the regions farmers can gradually
professionalize. To this end, the state should develop
infrastructure programmes (for information and com-
munications technologies, roads and education, among
others) geared towards improving the quality of life of
the rural population and thereby enhancing the options
for future rural inhabitants.
126 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 127 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Land Tenure in the Caribbean
Introduction
Caribbean land tenure relationships were formed in a
17th Century experiment that involved the rural en-
campment of an imported labour force (slavery) into a
conquered land space (Columbus West Indies). Tis
history is shared, not only by all 25 Island States and
dependencies within the Caribbean Sea, but also by
three continental countries, Belize in Central America
and Guyana and Suriname in South America. Tus, all
references to land issues in the Caribbean as a region are
inclusive of these three continental-based countries.
Unfortunately the institutional legacy of land tenure in
the Caribbean is not as indisputable as is its historical
origin. Te standard framework for analysing land te-
nure relationships in Latin America and the Caribbean
is that of Dualism as evidenced by the co-existence
of large estates (latifundia) juxtaposed with small plots
(minifundia) seeking to share the same land space. Tis,
however, portrays a passivity far removed from the con-
tinuous confict that accompanies land occupation and
land ownership in the Caribbean. Te distinguished Ca-
ribbean Anthropologist, Jean Besson [2003], notes that
...Troughout the period of colonial plantation slavery in
African-America, enslaved Africans and Creoles resisted and
opposed European land law and ofcial land tenure regimes
through rebellion, marronage and proto-ruralisation which
sought to re-establish autonomy, kinship and community
by consolidating customary rights to land.
Tis view more accurately equates Caribbean land te-
nure struggles to that of a social/economic duel,
with its roots in that 17
th
Century experiment. It sees
Caribbean Land Tenure as a repeating battle between
legality versus legitimacy. Te legality is expressed
in the legal institutional framework based on an imposi-
tion of European land law. Te legitimacy, on the other
hand, is expressed through the unofcial land-tenures
of family land, generational land, commonage
and even squatting which are sometimes erroneously
regarded as anachronistic survivals from colonial or an-
cestral cultures. To the contrary, these alternative land
tenure forms refect dynamic attempts by the poorer
sectors of Caribbean society to maximise their kinship
lines and their limited access to land, in order to ensure
their own food security and inter-generational survi-
val. Anthropologists refer to this activity as Caribbean
culture-building. In Haiti it is generally referred to as a
struggle to move from precariousness to legitimacy (de
prcarit vers lgitimit).
It is not surprising, therefore, to fnd Caribbean land
tenure relationships proving to be as rigid in structure as
the economy they support. Economist Andrew Pienkos
[Pienkos, 2006] has observed that despite decades of
development strategies and industrial polices, Caribbean
economies continue to show a pervasive economic dua-
lism, as evident in the co-existence of two distinct and
largely independent spheres of activities. Tis is a con-
clusion that can be readily applied to the numerous
eforts in the past to reform Caribbean land tenure. But
to understand this rigidity, we have to recognize that in
the Caribbean, it is the economy (plantation system)
that created the society (slave society) and not the other
way around. Tus to conceive of a full dismantlement
of this land tenure relationship is essentially to seek to
dismantle Caribbean society as we have known it.
Tere have been only two attempts in Caribbean history
to dismantle these structures. Te frst was the Haitian
Revolution (1791-1803) which, under the Presidencies
of Alexandre Petion (1806-1818) and Jean-Pierre Boyer
(1818-1843), completely obliterated the plantation system
by 1842 and produced a widespread peasantry, owning
and claiming small parcels of land. Te second was the
Cuban revolution (1959) in which the revolutionary state
appropriated all large privately owned land holdings
and produced a state-controlled tenure structure. All
other eforts, in history and present, are usually designed
to make tenure relations more accommodating to the
current reality.
Trends
Pre-eminence of state land ownership
Te important characteristic of land tenure in the Ca-
ribbean is the dominance of state ownership in the land
profle of most countries. In most Caribbean countries,
128 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 129 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 14. Profle of Caribbean Land Use in Action
Country
State
Ownership
Forestry Agriculture
Terrestrial
Protected Area
1 St. Kitts/Nevis 82% 42% 19% 3,8%
2 Guyana 78% 77% 9% 5,0%
3 Dominica 66% 60% 32% 21,7%
4 Bahamas
1
51% 51% 1% 13,7%
5 Trinidad & Tobago 51% 44% 11% 31,2%
6 St. Vincent & the Grenadines 47% 69% 26% 10,9%
7 Belize 45% 61% 7% 27,9%
8 Antigua & Barbuda 41% 23% 30% 7,0%
9 St. Lucia 38% 77% 18% 14,3%
10 Suriname
2
33% 95% 1% 11,6%
11 Jamaica 22% 31% 41% 18,9%
12 Grenada 10% 50% 35% 1,7%
13 Barbados 1% 19% 44% 0,1%
14 Dominican Republic
3
41% 51% 22,2%
15 Cuba
4
80% 27% 63% 6,4%
16 Hait
5
4% 67% 0,3%
Notes:
1. Bahamas: Forestry is used as a good indicator of the extent of Crown Lands ownership
2. Suriname: The laws vest full ownership of untitled lands and all natural resources in the state (domain land)
3. Dominican Republic: Law 6106 of 1962 confscated all the property of the former Dictator Trujillo and converted it
into property of the state via Consejo Estatal del Azcar, (1966)
4. The Cuban State assumes all land ownership in principle while sharing Usufruct rights with cooperatives.
5. In Haiti the state either purchases land for its social obligation or acquires it by fat.
Source: World Bank World Development Indicators 2009, Caricom Secretariat, 2000.
the state either inherited the land resources of the former
colonial rulers or purchased such resources as part of its
own land reform activities. Tis pre-eminent position in
land ownership and control makes the state the trend-
setter in land matters.
In the Independence Era (1960 -2010), post-colonial
Caribbean States sought to increase medium and small-
scale private holdings by re-distributing land to the rural
population either through the acquisition of large esta-
tes or dispensation from their own state lands. Tese
programmes have largely been abandoned in spite of
the fact that the rural poor continue to agitate for their
delivery. For instance, the National Farmers Union of
the Dominican Republic is reported to have delivered
petitions to the governor of the province of Puerto Plata,
Mrs. Eridania Gibre on April 12, 2011, demanding that
she make good on the governments pledge to distribute
land to poor farmers. Such actions serve as a testimony
to the recognition, by many citizens of the Caribbean,
of a presumed capacity of government to make things
happen in terms of land tenure.
Caribbean governments, however, have stepped away
from direct intervention in the land market, accepting
instead to strengthen the Land Administration Infras-
tructure and improve the security of land rights. Based
on the belief that secure land rights are the cornerstone
needed to break the cycle of poverty in rural communi-
ties and fnanced by international agencies, Caribbean
governments have instituted programmes with such the-
mes as land registration, tenure security, privatization
and individualization of land rights. Te most recent
programmes in this trend include the following;
Belize ( i. idb 2006) Cadastral and Property rights Re-
gistration;
St. Kitts ( ii. oas 2006) Land Registry, Cadastre and Real
Estate Property Management;
Guyana ( iii. idb 2010) Mapping the reasons why the
Property Rights System is inefective using the Reality
Check Analysis (rca) Methodology;
Haiti ( iv. oas 2010) Modernization of Cadastre and
Land Rights Infrastructure
Haiti ( v. idb 2012) Parcel Demarcation and Land Te-
nure Clarifcation
Te main focus of these programmes is to improve the
institutional structures for administering land matters in
the respective states and to contribute to the emergence
of a more vibrant land market. Te logic of using the
land market is that it can best reallocate land into its
most productive alternative uses. Rural communities
are expected to beneft from the monetization of land
rights.
The concentration and de-concentration of
land holdings
Te second most important trend has been the changes
in agricultural holdings brought about by the recent
collapse of traditional agricultural export markets. Tese
international economic events have not produced a pro-
cess of concentration of large land parcels or the aggressi-
ve appropriation of rural lands in the Caribbean. Rather
a mixed picture has emerged. In countries that have
continued to beneft from primary commodity exports,
the land ownership pattern has remained concentrated
in a few hands. In most of the Caribbean, however, the
collapse of the preferential trade regime for bananas and
sugar has resulted in a distinct decline in the total area
utilized for agricultural production and, in one case, an
actual decline in large land holdings.
Te Dominican Republic is the second largest sugar
producer in the Caribbean (next to Cuba). It is also a
country in which the model of a skewed land tenure
structure persists. Data from the 1981 census displayed
a land tenure structure that was essentially the same as
that refected in the 1971 census. According to the 1981
agricultural census, 2% of the nations farms occupied
55% of total farmland. By contrast, landholdings repre-
senting 82% of all farms (314,665 units), covered only
12% of the land under cultivation [Haggerty 1989]. Even
the 1998 Agricultural Census conducted by the state
Sugar Council (Consejo Estatal del Azcar) confrmed
the persistence of this skewed distribution. According
to that census, 40% of households with access to land
(titled occupation) owned less than 1.2 hectares each. Te
next category of land holdings, with less than 3.1 hectares
each, covered 75% of households with titles to land.
In countries where the rural economic base of export
agriculture had collapsed, the response in terms of land
holdings has been varied. Te common reaction to this
collapse has been a decline in the total area under agri-
cultural holdings. In St. Lucia, where the banana regime
collapsed, the total area in agricultural holdings fell from
51,328 acres recorded in the 1996 Agricultural Census,
to 30,204 acres in 2007. Tis represents a decrease of
41.1%. St. Lucias 2007 Census actually reported that
the greatest loss in number of holdings and in area was
observed in largest farms; more than 70% of the large
farms (in excess of 100 acres) operating in 1996 had di-
sappeared by 2007.
In Jamaica, where the impact was felt from both the
sugar and banana regimes, the approximately 326,000
hectares of land in farms recorded in the 2007 Census
of Agriculture refected a decline of 81,624 hectares or
just over 20% since 1996. In Trinidad & Tobago, with
its signifcant energy sector and less reliance on export
agriculture, total land in agriculture also declined from
131,572 hectares in 1982 to 84,990 hectares in 2004; a
decline of 35% with a similar decline (37%) in the num-
ber of farms.
However the inter-censual changes did have two sur-
prises. In Trinidad, large land holdings (in excess of 500
hectares) actually rose from 2.97% of the total agricul-
tural land (93.576 ha) in 1982 to an astounding 34.15%
of total agricultural land (84,989 ha) in 2004. Tis is
attributed to an aggressive approach by the state to su-
pport large-scale production of food in response to the
ever-increasing food import bill.
In St. Lucia on the other hand, not only did the lar-
ge holdings decline, but the proportion of land held
under customary tenure, i.e., Family Land, increased
signifcantly. According to the 2007 Census, the share
of owned land (i.e. land with legal title) in total land
holdings decreased during the last 20 years from 60%
to 40%, while family land increased from 24% in 1986
to 42% in 2007. As the economic fortunes from agri-
cultural land declines, families in St. Lucia appear to be
seeking security and inter-generational survival through
customary tenure.
130 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 131 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 16: Caribbean Remittances as % of gdp 2007 - 2010
2007 2008 2009 2010
Haiti 20 .47% 21 .38% 21 .23% 22 .34%
Jamaica 16 .62% 15 .31% 15 .20% 14 .11%
Guyana 16 .25% 14 .48% 13 .74% 13 .85%
Dominican Republic 8 .29% 8 .01% 7 .41% 6 .51%
Grenada 7 .22% 6 .67% 7 .02% 7 .05%
St. Kitts/Nevis 6 .23% 6 .34% 6 .46% 12 .47%
Dominica 6 .11% 5 .63% 5 .45% 5 .62%
Belize 5 .86% 5 .75% 5 .95% 5 .66%
St. Vincent & Te Grenadines 4 .83% 4 .43% 4 .31% 4 .34%
Barbados 4 .15% 2 .76% 3 .15% 2 .99%
St. Lucia 2 .93% 2 .79% 2 .76% 2 .62%
Antigua & Barbuda 1 .86% 1 .85% 1 .95% 2 .05%
Trinidad & Tobago 0 .50% 0 .35% 0 .55% 0 .58%
Total us$M us$7,750 us$7,986 us$7,548 us$7,725
Source: Compiled from World Development Indicators; The World Bank
Response to external/internal crises
Trade opportunities have traditionally played a key role
in the development of both the national and the rural
economy in the Caribbean. Tese trade opportunities
have been predominantly in commodity exports to Eu-
ropean markets under special preferential agreements.
Tis has been the legacy of two centuries of a land te-
nure structure created in support of large monoculture
plantations, producing a single export crop. Historically
sugar and banana have been the two major Caribbean
export crops; raw sugar exported from Cuba, Domini-
can Republic, Guyana, Jamaica and St. Kitts/Nevis and
banana exported from Dominica, Dominican Republic,
Belize, Jamaica, Guadeloupe, Martinique, Saint Lucia,
Saint Vincent and the Grenadines and Grenada. Te fip
side of this legacy is that domestic food supplies have
been left in the hands of small non-plantation producers
or replaced ever-increasing food imports.
An external/internal crisis arises when changing condi-
tions in the commodity export markets (primarily Euro-
pe because of historical reasons) trigger an economic
crisis of major proportions in the domestic economy.
Te main factors or events that precipitate such crises
are changes in the capacity of the country to produce at
traditional export levels or the loss of market share and
attractive export prices. Tis has occurred in recent times
in both sugar and banana exports from the Caribbean.
Sugar exports have defned Caribbean economies in
an historical and complex manner. Around 75% of the
worlds sugar is produced from sugar cane the histori-
cal crop of the plantation system. However, although
a signifcant proportion around one-third - of global
sugar production enters world trade, only a small share
is produced and traded at world prices. Te bulk of
international trade takes place under long-term arran-
gements (preferential trade agreements and contracts).
For instance, sugar export earnings for the Caribbean
region averaged us$406 million during 1999-2001 with
60% of these earnings being due to preferential access
to the eu and U.S. sugar markets.
Te erosion of preferential treatment of Caribbean su-
gar exports to the European Union (eu) began with
the collapse of sugar prices worldwide in the 1990s. Re-
cognizing the signifcant role that sugar exports play in
the economies of most Caribbean countries and other
traditional exporters, the European Union entered in a
series of joint agreements with African, Caribbean and
Pacifc (acp) countries to assist them in readjusting
their domestic economies. Tus emerged the Sugar
Protocol, comprising a combination of specifc tarifs,
safeguards, country-specifc tarif quotas, rules of origin
and country-specifc suspensions from tarif.
Te Sugar Protocol also included a eu commitment to
support the economic adjustment process in exporting
countries with income transfers. But this is essentially a
policy instrument that can be unilaterally changed by the
European Union. In fact, acp exporting countries faced
a reduction in their guaranteed export price of 36% as a
result of a 2005 reform in the Sugar Protocol.
The importance of income transfers under the Sugar
Protocol, have turned out to be a very weak response to
the trade crisis precipitated by a loss of export income.
Both in absolute and relative terms (as a proportion of
national income and total export earnings), these trans-
fers were signifcant to Guyana and St. Kitts/Nevis and,
at the most, modest to Belize, Barbados and Jamaica.
More importantly, however was the response from Ca-
ribbean governments themselves. In most instances,
governments pursued aggressively the development of
the tourism sector, even to the extent of offering land
access to foreigners as an incentive. Thus the Alien
Land Registration requirements, instituted in the 1980s
and 1990s as a means of limiting land ownership by fo-
reigners, were relaxed and in some cases the traditional
access of citizens to beach facilities (recreational and
small artisan fsheries) was severely restricted.
The rise of tourism earnings has succeeded to a great de-
gree in replacing the loss in income at the national level,
from declining banana and sugar export opportunities.
However, in most cases, this replacement provided very
few of the backward economic linkages that the struc-
ture of commodity exports had entrenched in the rural
communities. A recent World Bank Study [de Ferranti
2005] measured the impact of rural economic activities
and their high contribution to agricultural exports and
found that while rural natural resource activities only
accounted for 12% of Caribbean regional gdp, their
effect on national growth and poverty reduction was
nearly twice as large. This was due to the forward and
backward linkages associated with export agriculture
that have now been lost to tourism development.
Remittances as a significant response
Te third response to the internal crisis is the rise in
remittances as a signifcant income fow from Ca-
ribbean migrants in the metropolitan countries. In
2010, remittances from 13 Caribbean countries were
estimated at us$7 billion [idb 2011], or 7% of total
gdp. Although 2010 remittance fows may have been
exceptionally large (increasing by 8.3%), in response
to the devastating earthquake in Haiti early that year,
the trend in remittances continued to be signifcant,
increasing by 5.9%, in 2011.
As Table 16 indicates, these remittances exceed 5% of gdp
in more than 50% of the countries and are more signif-
cant than the income transfers from the Sugar Protocol.
While they may be considered as consumption support,
their potential to stabilize rural incomes from insecure
land tenures and to be converted into land investments is
still to be explored. Tere is enough evidence to suggest
that growth in the national economy can have positive
efects on poverty reduction. Te question is the extent
to which growth in the rural natural resource sector (i.e.,
land, agriculture and rural employment) can be associa-
ted with additional increments in the size of the rest of
the economy. Te World Bank study [de Ferranti 2005]
also suggests that in spite of the low gdp share of Rural
Natural Resource (rnr) sector, for each 1.0% growth of
the rnr sector, there is an average increase in the incomes
of the poor of almost 0.08%. In other words, the percen-
tage of the national population earning less than us$1 per
day would tend to decline with improvements in both
agricultural value added and land yields. Te potential
remains for remittances to become attracted into rural
natural resource investment activities with a signifcant
impact on the future of Caribbean land tenure.
Outlook
The economics of Caribbean land reform
Te standard economic model seeks to position land
tenure within a land policy that promotes sustainable
and equitable economic growth by enabling land to
play its role optimally as a factor in the production of
Table 15. Estimates of Income Transfers under the
Sugar Protocol
Transfer US$M
% of
GDP
% of total
exports
Guyana 61.3 10.1% 11.4%
St. Kitts 7.3 2.4% 5.4%
Belize 17.1 2.5% 4.9%
Barbados 24.7 1.1% 2.3%
Jamaica 53.2 0.8% 1.8%
Trinidad &
Tobago
20.1 0.3% 0.5%
Total Sugar
Protocol
584,2
Source: Forthcoming Changes in the eu Banana/
Sugar Markets: A Menu of Options for an Effec-
tive eu Transitional Package, odi Report by Ian
Gillson, Adrian Hewitt & Sheila, Table 26, p.52
132 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 133 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Cuba has also faced a similar external/internal
crisis in its commodity trade relations. In 1990
a collapse in Cubas major trading partner, the
Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (cmea),
primarily Soviet Bloc countries, precipitated a
crisis in its domestic economy and forced the Re-
volutionary Government to deal with the legacy
of its colonial land tenure. This legacy is not diffe-
rent from other Caribbean states, namely a huge
monoculture agricultural sector, now state-owned
in Cuba producing a single export crop, sugar; a
corresponding food import bill of about us$1.5
billion annually, accounting for close to 80% of
Cubas basic food supplies; and a signifcant de-
cline in its rural population from 56% in 1956 to
28% in 1989 to less than 20% in the mid-90s. As
Dr. Fernando Funes-Monzote a senior researcher
at the Experimental Station Indio Hatuey of the
University of Matanzas, Cuba, has observed, the
elimination of the latifundio in 1959 in Cuba by itself
did not eradicate the historical problems intrinsic to
the national agricultural system.
The Cuban model to achieve more effcient
agricultural production has moved away from the
collectivisation approach of organized state farms
of 1963, in a similar manner as other Caribbean
states have moved away from a reliance on state
lands to reverse the declining fortunes in the
agricultural sector. Cubas experience has inclu-
ded, (1977) Cooperativas de Produccin Agrope-
cuaria (cpas) which used state land to produce
non-export crops; (1993): Unidades Bsicas de
Produccin Cooperativa (ubpcs) which allowed
collectives of workers to lease state farmlands
rent free, in perpetuity; and (1996/7) Parcele-
ros where land was being distributed directly to
family farmers organized in three categories:
- ccs: Most of those who have private ownership
of their farms are members of Credit and Service
Cooperatives (ccs). By 1997 there were 2,709
ccss, with a membership consisting of 159,223
individual farmers working 11.8% of total agricul-
tural land (Ofcina Nacional de Estadsticas 1997).
- Usufructuarios: These are the individual far-
mers who have received lands in usufruct (with
rights to use, not dispense) originating from the
state. In 1996 the number of these so-called
usufructuarios had grown from zero to 43,015
farmers.
- Individual Farmers, who are not co-op members
One thread that connects these land/production
reorganization schemes is to be found in a now
defunct programme begun before the Special
Period, called Vinculando el Hombre con la
Tierra, [Funes et al., 2002] which sought to more
closely link the producer (at that time state farm
workers) to particular parcels of land. In this new
drive to boost local food security, the Cuban
government, according to the offcial media, has
handed out 689,697 hectares or 41% of the total
plan and that 25% is already being farmed.
This land distribution process initiated in 2008
is, however, of a different genre. First it seems
to be coming from a recognition that in spite of
previous policy initiatives to re-orient some of
the state farms into the production of domestic
food supplies, it is a small non-state, private food
producing section of the population that conti-
nues to out-produce the state-organized sector
in such crops as tomato by 17.5%; onion by 38%;
peppers by 116%; and all vegetables combined by
56% [Alvarez 2004]. Secondly, it seems to have
attracted a section of the population with very
little agricultural experience. According to the
head of the National Land Control Center, Pedro
Olivera, 26% of the new Cuban farmers were
people under 25 years with little work experience
and more than 70% of the total recipients had
no experience in agriculture. Thirdly the state is
seeking to provide continuity and sustainability
to this measure. Plots are limited to 13 hectares
and can be worked for 10 years by individuals and
the state is also considering giving authorization
to recipients to build houses on the plots. These
aspects of this initiative tend to suggest that the
challenge to the Cuban government will not come
from achieving production levels but from new
forms of culture building in rural communities.
Box 4. A revolution bends to its land legacy
The distribution of state lands to private indi-
viduals does not in itself constitute a change
in the structure of land tenure in Cuba, which
recognises income from the use of land (usu-
fruct) but not income from the possession of land
(market value). The offcial expectation is that
this situation would evolve towards new forms
of management and the establishment of more
productive relationships among production units
and between them and state enterprises. Howe-
ver, it is left to be seen whether new forms of
culture building and informal land exchanges will
be allowed to emerge as citizens seek to impose
their own interpretation of sustainability and
viability on the allocated land parcels.
goods and services. Te land-related outcomes that are
associated with this model are:
Efciency via increased tenure security, investment
and dynamic land markets;
Equity via access to resources by disadvantaged
groups; and,
Sustainability via eforts at land protection.
Te principal indicators of efective land markets are:
Increased volume of transactions to transfer land to
people who are likely to use it better;
Increased value of land, to reward owners for the most
remunerative uses of land;
Reduced transactions costs (in both money and time)
facilitated by an efcient administration of land mat-
ters;
Improved access to credit to increase the economic
productivity of the land and the income recovery of
the owners.
While theoretically sound, this model becomes very weak
as a guide for efective land tenure policy in most of the
Caribbean. Its weakness stems from the fact that it views
land solely as a wealth-creating asset while a signifcant
segment of Caribbean society views land as a source of
Culture and Patrimony. Tis context is to be distin-
guished from the Cuban Maxim, La vivienda es para
vivir en ella, no para vivir de ella (Te home is to live in,
not to live from), which totally denies the opportunity
for property income. Within the culture and patrimony
context, the outlook for land tenure reform is likely to be
dominated by cultural issues that transcend identifable
marketable rights and economic income from tenure.
Table 4 provides a profle of current land tenure issues in
the Caribbean. Te three important issues continue to
be the low level of parcel identifcation (tenure security
issue); the persistence of alternate forms of land tenure
(legitimacy issue); and issues relating to land occupation
as distinct from land ownership (culture building eforts).
But these three categories together tend to exhibit more
cultural characteristics than administrative or purely
economic ones.
Te issue of land parcel identifcation will surely continue
to be signifcant as witnessed by the amount of interna-
tional resources already committed to this activity. Land
registries in the Caribbean are struggling to fully identify
ownership of all parcels of land, but whether parcel iden-
tifcation will provide security of tenure to the majority
of the rural poor is questionable.
Tere are three major factors that work against the sim-
plicity of the legal solutions that have been implemented
to date. Tese are:
Cost of registering titles is considered high in terms a.
of both money and time and has become a major
disincentive for land transactions to remain within
the confnes of the law;
Non-market transfers of land parcels which not only b.
introduce a multiplicity of non-legal arrangements
but also cause legally titled land parcels to slip back
into non-legal customary tenure;
134 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 135 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Table 17. Profle of Caribbean Land Issues
Country
Land Parcels
(est.)
Other Signifcant Ownership Patterns Land Occupation Issues
Guyana 40,000+
Historic state land leases; collective holdings of
Amerindian lands.
Preponderance of informal land
transactions, either only minimally
documented or entirely undocumented.
Suriname n.a
Customary land tenure; communal leasehold
titles to indigenous communities.
Indigenous communities challenging
the rights of the state to Domain
Lands.
Cuba n.a
Leasing of state-owned lands; usufructs rights to
cooperatives and individuals.
Experiments with private land
distribution in food production and
in housing (Law 288).
Dominican
Republic
2,250,000
Haitian immigration and the
integration of Dominicans of Haitian
descent are major issues
Haiti 1,260,000 Rentals and share cropping; Less than 5% of land is cadastred.
Belize n.a
Historic communal occupation (Maya,
Garifuna); leasing of national estate lands
Legitimate claims to lands utilized
in the shifting cultivation of Milpa
Farmers.
Jamaica 676,584 Family lands, un-documented transfers
Concern over squatting on both
private and public lands.
Bahamas 140,000
Generational titles; commonage; crown land
grants,
Remote islands being occupied by
migrants mainly from Haiti.
Trinidad &
Tobago
440,000 Family lands (Tobago) 25,000 housing squatters on state lands;
Dominica n.a
Communal ownership: 3,700 acres vested in the
Caribbean Council
Confict over Private ownership
St. Lucia 33,281 Family lands - 45% of total lands Un-documented land transfers
Antigua 41,000
Communal lands in Barbuda;
23% of land with un-established ownership
Recent claims of immigrant
community approx. 3,000; on
outskirts of St. Johns
Barbados 98,098 Land leases; Policy of public access to beaches
St. Vincent &
Grenadines
n.a
Owner-like possessions rental lands about 23%
agricultural lands.
Reported 16,000 unauthorized land
occupants; Forest reserves threatened
Grenada 52,229 Family lands estimated 15% of all lands.
Incidence considered low; 1,250
plots regularized
St. Kitts/Nevis n.a
Family lands; rental holdings:
12% in St. Kitts, 18% in Nevis
403 acres in St. Kitts and 128 acres
in Nevis under illegal possession
Source: Extracted from studies in Land in the Caribbean, Allan N. Williams, ed., 2003
Customary ownership, which identifes the land c.
rights of a collective group of persons rather than
an individual.
Te latter two are legitimacy and culture building issues
and are likely to fashion the responses in Caribbean land
tenure reform, particularly as they relate to:
Te preponderance of informal land transactions, which
continually invalidate the accuracy of registered titles;
Te rights of indigenous peoples and Caribbean im-
migrants to security on land they occupy and do not
necessarily own.
We are already seeing evidence of the difculties in-
herent in applying legal solutions to culturally based
land issues:
In Suriname the indigenous peoples, the Kalia In-
digenous Community of Maho, and the Association
of Indigenous Village Leaders submitted a petition
to the Inter-American Commission of the Human
Rights Organization of American States in 2009. Te
petition challenges the laws that vest full ownership
of untitled lands and all natural resources in the state
and the provisions that negate or make illusory the
land privileges accorded to their communities.
In Belize small farmers can be divided into milpa
producers, who practice shifting cultivation, and per-
manent cultivators. Tis shifting cultivation practice,
prevalent among the Maya of the southern districts,
refects a cultural accommodation to insecure tenure
situations, which cannot be reversed by simply pro-
viding these farmers with legal land titles.
In the Bahamas and Turks & Caicos Islands, eforts
have been made to codify and give special advanta-
ges to belongers versus non-belongers [Williams
2005]. Tese cultural defnitions of land ownership
failed essentially because international capital, which
is needed for such structural development in the
tourism sector, does not need to reveal the nationa-
lity of its owners.
Te government of Trinidad and Tobago had invited
Alcoa to build a $us1.5 billion aluminium smelter on
1,340 hectares, in Chatham/Cap-de-Ville, an area pre-
viously zoned for agriculture. Tis attempt was seen
as a state facilitated internal land grab and provoked
uproar amongst farmers and fshermen who antici-
pated health-related problems in addition to the loss
of income and source of livelihood. Te project was
fnally withdrawn by the succeeding government.
Conflict resolution through land use changes
Te coastal zone is an important asset in the life of Ca-
ribbean citizens from a source of livelihoods (fshing,
shrimping) to recreational facilities (beach occasions),
trade with neighbouring islands and disaster survival
(accessibility of external emergency support). So when
conficts arise from alternative land uses of coastal zones
like in tourism establishments (hotels), legal issues, social
responsibilities and economic rights all complicate the
situation.
However, there are examples of successful resolution
through voluntary agreements among the various
stakeholders in which the focus becomes compliance
actions to reduce the areas of confict, rather than non-
resolution in a never ending name and blame process.
Te feasibility of such a mechanism has been demons-
trated in the Soufriere Marine Management Area (smma)
(www.smla.org.lc) in the West Coast of St. Lucia. Te
smma comprises 11 km of coastline which has been vo-
luntarily zoned for fve diferent types of usage: marine
reserves, fshing priority areas, yacht mooring areas,
recreational areas and multiple use areas. Tese zones
were designed to cater to the myriad uses in the area,
reducing confict among users and protecting critical
marine resources.
High Nature Value (HNV) environments
Tere are also critical land spaces in the Caribbean that
have not been declared Protected Areas because the
legislation (where it exists) is too restrictive and politi-
cally explosive. Te absence of a legal designation does
not reduce the High Nature Value of these environ-
ments. Tese include watershed areas, wetlands and coral
reefs all of which provide life-supporting eco-system
services.
One instrument that has emerged is the High Nature
Value Index (hnvi) [Williams 2011], which assesses the
impact and improves the contribution of farming practi-
ces to ecological stability in this environment. Te hnvi
can play a vital role in fnding common ground between
the needs of rural communities to increase agricultural
productivity and farm-incomes and the desire to reduce
136 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 137 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
the negative environmental impact of economic activity
in such sensitive areas. Te current challenge is to ins-
titutionalize the hnvi as an application tool available
to a wider spectrum of stakeholders and contributing
to broadening the base of responsible actors in these
environments.
The challenge of rural poverty
Te challenges of poverty in the Caribbean will also
have to be addressed by policies in which land will be
the central instrument for implementation. Tis is the
concept of resource poverty which measures things
like access to housing, health, education and land. For
instance, Grenada is one of the smallest Caribbean States
with 84,000 acres (33,994 ha), where the state owns less
than 10% of the land and where the level of poverty is
reported to be as high as 32% of the population. Focusing
on the housing need, the Public Sector Housing Policy
and Strategy for Grenada, [Grenada 2002], ofers the
following land-related factors as infuencing the solution
to the housing problem:
Grenadians have a culture of family land holding that
complicates land title and discourages sub-division
and sale;
Te nature of the economy has been changing from
rural agricultural to urban service-based, putting a
premium on land in areas close to economic deve-
lopment;
Land prices have risen sharply in the past two de-
cades, due mainly to the relative scarcity of housing
plots, population and economic growth and expa-
triate Grenadians and non-Grenadians investing for
retirement;
Te lack of published land-use plans probably restricts
private and public initiatives that would otherwise
bring new land onto the housing market.
However, the issue of resource poverty is no less daunting
in one of the richest economies in the Caribbean. Te
available census data for Trinidad & Tobago indicate that
47.1% of households do not have adequate documenta-
tion of rights to the land on which their houses are built.
Tis represents 141,468 households with a total popu-
lation of approximately 576,959 people. It is assumed,
theoretically, that improved security of tenure would
enable those households to have easier access to credit
for house improvements and would help assure that in-
vestments made in homes would be legally protected.
A study of housing fnance in Trinidad & Tobago [Au-
guste et al., 2011] revealed the complexities of land te-
nure and afordable housing. Te study indicated that
during the period of strong economic growth, while
housing prices skyrocketed the demand for mortgage
loans remained low. Te study implied that housing
prices increased more rapidly than wages resulting in
afordability problems characterizing the dynamics of
the housing defcit.
It is clear that the economics of the housing market
would serve to attract buyers and suppliers to the upper
scale of housing needs. A secondary issue then arises
around the measures undertaken by the state to make
lands available for afordable housing. Te confict
emerges when government seeks to make former agri-
cultural lands available for public housing. While the
opposition to the loss of agricultural lands is unders-
tandable, the fact remains that housing and settlements
cannot be implemented in remote areas far from social
infrastructure (roads, schools, hospitals, police ofces,
etc.).
Caribbean Dutch Disease
Te Caribbean region has been identifed as a major
transhipment venue for illicit drugs into the United
States and Europe. Tis is an activity that is not only
contributing to the rise in violence but also to the accu-
mulation of signifcant amounts of wealth in the hands
of trafckers. A study of Drug Trafcking in the Ca-
ribbean by the Council on Hemispheric Afairs (coha)
in 2011 [Beale 2011] concluded that the Caribbeans na-
tural landscapes and difuse geographical locations make
it appealing to drug trafckers. Te islands ofer the ad-
vantages of weak administrations with little control over
long coastlines and inaccessible mountainous interiors
that may be ideal for the growth and transportation of
narcotics. Money laundering of such illicit gains into real
estate is also becoming a source of concern both from a
position of economic stability and rising land prices in
the Caribbean [DominicaToday.com 2011] Tus, rising
land values in the Caribbean do not necessarily signify
an efcient market allocation of land resources into al-
ternative land uses.
Te Housing Policy study referred to above, suggested
that rising land prices in Trinidad & Tobago were the
result of Dutch Disease pressure arising from signif-
cant export earnings of the energy sector. But that does
not explain the rise in land prices for housing in other
Caribbean islands with no signifcant energy sectors.
We may be witnessing a variant of Dutch Disease in
which a non-productive wealth generating sector
(drug trafcking) distorts through its lavish consump-
tion, accumulation and investment actions:
Property Values and real estate ownership patterns;
Economic opportunities and market driven resource
allocation;
Turf battles in wealth protection among lower inco-
me groups (gangs and guns)
Determining the correct response is as difcult as dis-
cerning the nature and source of the problem. Te
Caribbean economies are free-market economies with
strong infuences fowing from the economic to the
political sphere of activities. Managing the inevitable
structural changes in the economy and the political sys-
tem so as to ensure social and economic stability will
continue to be challenged by such short-term distortions
produced by such a disproportionate accumulation of
wealth.
Capacity for disaster response
One of the unspoken lessons of the Haitian crisis emer-
ging from the devastating earthquake of 2010 is the ex-
tent to which a poor land administrative structure is
restricting the pace of recovery. Te earthquake destro-
yed the civil structures including records of land tenu-
re in the capital and its environs. Not only were these
structures difcult to negotiate during normal times,
they became totally impossible to reproduce during an
emergency.
Te loss-to-output ratio argues theoretically that a
natural disaster will have a strong impact on a countrys
economic performance if the size of damages is high
compared with the size of the economy [Charvriat
2000].
Te authors observations appear to corroborate
the theory that the depressionary efect of the disaster can
be outweighed by the sharp increase in gdp in the years
following the disaster if the lost-to-output ratio is low.
Te experience of recovery in Haiti reduces any hope
that such statistical history applies in the Caribbean. In
the small-sized Caribbean economies, resilience to na-
tural disasters will continue to depend on the skills and
motivation of the remaining population, the availability
of and access to land and improved security of tenure;
the complications of emergency land use and environ-
mental issues; the restructuring of the delivery of basic
services, including water, sanitation, health services and
transportation, all of which can function best within the
framework of a viable land administration system.
Policy Recommendations
The guiding principles of best practices
Tere is an urgent need to acknowledge the inequalities
and diversities of the land situation in the Caribbean as
a guide to what can wisely be done under the prevailing
circumstances. Te best practice idea as promoted by
unescos Environment and Development in Coastal
Regions and in Small Islands (csi) platform, calls for
strategies that address the following issues:
Efectiveness: a minimum or absence of disputes,
with limited efort needed to ensure compliance;
Stability: an adaptive capacity to cope with progres-
sive changes, such as the arrival of new users or te-
chniques;
Resilience: a capacity to accommodate surprise or
sudden shocks;
Equitability: a shared perception of fairness among
the members with respect to the winners and lo-
sers.
Broadening the base of responsible actors
Government revenues in the Caribbean are not robust
enough to singularly resolve cultural land issues. As such,
the more achievable policy goal would be to broaden the
base of responsible actors in society by giving decision
making power to lower levels of governance and seeking
to support their action plans in a cost efective way that
makes everyone a winner. Tere are fve operating stra-
tegies that will serve this purpose well. Tese are:
Cooperation among stakeholders to become as in-
clusive as possible;
Alliance for action as a response to complexity at
the sectoral level;
138 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 139 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
abcolombia. 2011. Returning Land to Colombias Victims. Available at http://www.abcolombia.org.uk/downloads/
ReturningLandReportforweb.pdf
Acharya, K.P., Dangi, R.B., Acharya, M. 2012. Analysis of forest degradation in Nepal. Unasylva 238(62): 31-38.
afp (Agence France-Presse). 2012. Mexico kills 2.5 mn poultry to contain bird fu. July 11. Available at http://www.
google.com/hostednews/afp/article/aleqM5hOw9R4vybA_zotbfr3uksnnrmxUw?docId=cng.e3bb940ba7c-
d96953abc2a7998969c09.261
Alvarez, Jos. 2004. Cubas Agricultural Sector. Gainesville, fl: University Press of Florida.
ami (American Meat Institute). 2010. Fact Sheet - International Trade: Latin America. Washington, D.C., July.
Available at http://www.meatami.com/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/61569/
Antle, J. M. 1983. Infrastructure and Aggregate Agricultural Productivity: International Evidence. Economic
Development and Cultural Change. Vol. 31, No. 3 (Apr., 1983), pp. 609-619. Te University of Chicago Press.
Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1153216
Arauco. 2010. Annual Report 2010. Santiago, Chile. Available at http://www.arauco.cl/_fle/fle_5015_annual-
report-arauco-2010.pdf
Auguste, S.; Moya, R.; Sookram, S. 2011. Housing Finance Policy under Dutch Disease Pressure: Te Mortgage
Market in Trinidad and Tobago. idb-tn-302.
Aylwin, J. 2002. El acceso de los indgenas a la tierra en los ordenamientos jurdicos de Amrica Latina: Un estudio
de casos. Unidad de Desarrollo Agrcola, depe, eclac, Santiago.
Banco Central de Chile. 2011. Cuentas Nacionales: Evolucin de la actividad econmica en el ao 2011. Available
at http://goo.gl/lwoz1
Baranyi, S.; Deere, C.D.; Morales, M. 2004. Estudio del alcance de la investigacin sobre polticas de tierras en
Amrica Latina, Te North-South Institute, irdc.
Barona, E.; Ramankutty, N.; Hyman, G.; Coomes, O.T. 2010. Te role of pasture and soybean in deforestation
of the Brazilian Amazon. Environmental Research Letters 5(2): 1-9. Available at http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-
9326/5/2/024002/pdf/1748-9326_5_2_024002.pdf
Barsky, A. and Vio, M. 2007. La problemtica del ordenamiento territorial en cinturones verdes periurbanos so-
metidos a procesos de valorizacin inmobiliaria. El Caso del Partido del Pilar, Regin Metropolitana de Buenos
Aires, 9th International Colloquium on Geocriticism.
Beale, M. 2011. Te caricom Blueprint for Illicit Drug Trafcking, Research Associate for the Council on Hemis-
pheric Afairs (coha), December 28, 2011.
Beintema, N.M. and Stads, G-J. 2010. Public agricultural R&D investments and capacities in developing Coun-
Bibliography
Co-management of the ecosystem through negotia-
tion with those who have entitlements but need to
exercise more responsibility at the landscape level;
Consensus building for respect and equity at the
national organizational level.
Technical Training for efectiveness and efciency
at the implementation level. Developing a cadre of
technicians capable of making land degradation as-
sessments; training farmers in compatible eco-system
techniques; gps positioning and designing systems of
hnv Index Mapping.
Te Caribbean region needs to see the creation of new
or reconfgured institutions that would efectively ad-
minister both private and public interests in land in a
market economy. Tis is needed to ensure that initiatives
such as environmental zoning, promoting eco-tourism,
managing urban expansion, protecting coastal zones and
controlling deforestation are not seriously challenged
by the trend towards marketization of individual land
rights.
140 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 141 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
tries: Recent Evidence for 2000 and beyond. ast I Background Note. Prepared for the Global Conference on
Agricultural Research for Development (gcard), Montpellier, March 2730, 2010. Available at http://www.
asti.cgiar.org/pdf/gcard-BackgroundNote.pdf
Besson, J. 1995. Land, Kinship and Community in the Post-Emancipation Caribbean: A Regional View of the
Leewards, in Small Islands, Large Questions: Society, Culture and Resistance in the Post-Emancipation Ca-
ribbean, edited by Karen Fog Olwig, pp. 73-99.
Besson, J. 2003. History, Culture and Land in the English-speaking Caribbean in land in the caribbean, Pro-
ceedings of a Workshop on Land Policy, Administration and Management in Te English-Speaking Caribbean,
edited by Dr. Allan N. Williams.
Blayney, D.; Gehlhar, M; Bolling, C.H.; Jones, K.;. Langley, S; Normile, M.A.; Somwaru, A. 2006. U.S. Dairy at a
Global Crossroads. Economic Research Report No. err-28, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Washington, D.C.,
November. Available at http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw15d8pg7m/http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/err28/
Bojanic, A. 2011. General State of the forests in Latin America. On the path of sustainable development: Challenges
and alternatives. viii Latin American Congress on Forest Environmental Law. San Jos, Costa Rica. October
2011.
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 2001. Decreto con fuerza de ley de tierras y desarrollo agrario, No. 1546, Gaceta
Ofcial de la Repblica Bolivariana de Venezuela, No. 37323.
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 2010. Ley de Reforma Parcial de la Ley de Tierras y Desarrollo Agrario, 2010.
National Assembly of Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela (www.asambleanacional.gob.ve)
Borras S. M.; Franco, J. C.; Gmez, S.; Kay, C.; Spoor, M. 2012. Land grabbing in Latin America and the Ca-
ribbean, Journal of Peasant Studies, 39:3-4, pp. 845-872.
Carr, D.L.; Bilborrow, R.E.; Barbieri, A.. 2003. Population, agricultural land use and the environment in Latin
America at the dawn of the 20th century: Evidence of change at the regional, national, and local scales. Procee-
dings of the Open Meeting of the Human Dimensions of Global Environmental Change Research. Montreal,
Canada. October 16-18. Available at http://www.geog.ucsb.edu/~carr/dcarr_Publications/Carr_Barbieri _Bils-
borrow_Montreal_proceedings_03.pdf
Cerda C. 2011. Te application of choice experiments to identify local preferences for conservation and development
options in the extreme south of Chile. Bosque 32 (3), 297-307.
Cerda C. 2012. Valuing biodiversity and water supply using choice experiments. A case study of La Campana Peuelas
Biosphere Reserve, Chile. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment. doi: 10.1007/s10661-012-2549-5.
Charvriat, C. 2000, Natural Disasters in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Overview of Risk, Inter-American
Development Bank, Research Department: Working Paper No.434.
cmpc (Paper and Cardboard Manufacturing Corporation). 2011. Memoria Anual, Santiago, Chile.
conadi (National Indigenous Development Corporation). 2012. Fund for Indigenous Lands and Waters (ftai)
(www.conadi.gob.cl)
Cordero, D. 2011. Latin Americas Forests. Friedrich Ebert Stiftung-Regional Energy and Climate Project.
Cubillos, R. 2012. What the experts say: Description of the Chilean pig sector. pig333.com, Animalesweb S.L.,
Barcelona, Spain. May 14. Available at http://www.pig333.com/what_the_experts_say/description-of-the-chilean-
pig-sector_5742/
Dagang, A.B.K and P.K.R. Nair. 2003. Silvopastoral research and adoption in Central America: recent fndings and
recommendations for future directions. Agroforestry Systems 59: 149155. Available at http://www.springerlink.
com/content/h20jx0873twhm615/fulltext.pdf?mud=mp
deCarbonnel, E. 2009. Market Oracle/Global Research. Available at http://goo.gl/fO1Ow. Accessed on
9/05/2012.
de Ferranti, D.; Perry, G. F.; Foster, W.; Lederman, D.; Valds, A. 2005. Beyond the city: Te Rural Contribution
to Development,. Te World Bank Latin American and Caribbean Studies.
De la Madrid, E. 2009. El Minifundio y el Campo Mexicano. El Sol de Mxico, May 16.
Diario Financiero, Chile. March 30, 2012. (www.df.cl).
Diario la Repblica, Peru. January 29, 2012.
direcon (General Directorate for International Economic Afairs). 2012. (www.direcon.gob.cl).
Dirven, M. 2002. Las prcticas de herencia de tierras agrcolas: una razn ms para el xodo de la juventud?. Serie
Desarrollo Productivo No 135, eclac, Santiago, Chile.
Dirven, M. 2004. Rural non-farm employment and rural diversity in Latin America. eclac Review No. 83, pp.
50-69.
Dirven, M., Echeverri, R., Sabalain, C., Rodrguez, A., Candia, D., Pea, C. & Faiguenbaum, S. 2011. Hacia una
nueva defnicin de rural con fnes estadsticos en Amrica Latina. Documento de Proyecto lc/W397. Unidad
de Desarrollo Agrcola, eclac, Santiago, Chile.
Dirven, M. 2012. Dinmicas del mercado de tierras en los pases del Mercosur y Chile: una mirada analtica-crtica, fao,
Santiago, Chile. Available at http://www.rlc.fao.org/fleadmin/content/events/semtierras/estudios/dirven.pdf
Djinkman, J. and H. Steinfeld. 2010. Chapter 19: Responses on social issues in H. Steinfeld, H.A. Mooney, F.
Schneider, and L.E. Neville, eds. Livestock in a changing landscape: Drivers, consequences, and responses, Vol.
1. Island Press. Available at http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am074e/am074e00.pdf
DominicanToday.com. 2011. Drugs and money laundering in the Dominican Republic.
Dufey A. and Stange, D. 2011. Estudio regional sobre la economa de los biocombustibles en 2010. Documento
de Proyecto lc/W.412, Unidad de Desarrollo Agrcola, Santiago, Chile.
ecadert (Central American Strategy for Rural Territorial Development). 2009. Construyendo juntos una estrate-
gia centroamericana de desarrollo rural territorial. Sntesis del marco de referencia para formular la Estrategia
Centroamericana de Desarrollo Rural Territorial. Available at http://www.ruta.org/boletines/inforuta/Muje-
resValor2/anexos/Consultasecadert/sintesisejecutivaecadertjunio202009.pdf
Echeverri, R. and Sotomayor, O. 2010. Estrategias de gestin territorial rural en las polticas pblicas en Iberoamrica.
Documento de Proyecto lc/W.376, Unidad de Desarrollo Agrcola/eclac and rlc/fao, Santiago, Chile.
B
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
f
a
142 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 143 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
eclac. 2012a. Macroeconomic Report on Latin America and the Caribbean. June.
eclac. 2012b. Preliminary Overview of the Economies of Latin America and the Caribbean 2011 (lc/G.2512-P),
Santiago, Chile, February. United Nations, Sales No. E.12.ii.G.2.
eclac. 2012c. Poblacin, territorio y desarrollo sostenible. lc/L.3474 (cep.2/3). United Nations, Santiago, Chile.
eclac . 2011a. Social Panorama of Latin America 2011. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Ca-
ribbean, Santiago, Chile.
eclac. 2011b. Te reactions of the governments of the Americas to the international crisis: follow-up to policy
measures adopted. December.
eclac. 2010. Social Panorama of Latin America 2010. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Ca-
ribbean, Santiago, Chile.
eclac. 2010. Te Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas: A Perspective on Latin
America and the Caribbean 2010. fao/rlc, Santiago, Chile.
eclac. 2009. Social Panorama of Latin America 2009. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Ca-
ribbean, Santiago, Chile.
eclacstat. 2012. Online database. eclac. Available at http://websie.eclac.cl/sisgen/ConsultaIntegrada.asp/
eclac, fao, iica. 2011. Te Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas: A Perspective on
Latin America and the Caribbean 2011-2012. iica, San Jos, Costa Rica.
eclac, fao, iica. 2010. Te Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas: A Perspective on
Latin America and the Caribbean 2010. iica, San Jos, Costa Rica.
Eldon, B. V.; Butault, J.P. y Nehring, R.F. 2002. U.S. Agriculture, 196096: A Multilateral Comparison of Total
Factor Productivity. Captulo en libro: Agricultural Productivity. Springer us. pp: 11 35, Vo: 2. Available at http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0851-9_2
ers. 2012. Comparing droughts: 1934 and 2012. http://goo.gl/bnkme
European Commission. 2012. Innovating for Sustainable Growth: A Bioeconomy for Europe. Brussels, European
Commission, April 13.
Evenson, R. E.; Kislev, Y. 1975. Agricultural research and productivity. Available at http://goo.gl/MfcWb
Executive Secretary of Agricultural Sector Planning. 2011. Costa Rican State Policy for the Food Sector and Rural
Development, 2010-2021. Ministry of Agriculture and Livestock - San Jos, Costa Rica. 84pp.
fao. 2012a. Food Outlook: Global Market Analysis. Available at: http://goo.gl/Icgxq
fao. 2012b. faostat: Production (online). Rome, it. Accessed June and July 2012. Available at: http://faostat.fao.
org/site/291/default.aspx.
fao. 2012c. faostat: Food balance sheets (online). Rome, it. Accessed June and July 2012. Available at: http://
faostat.fao.org/site/291/default.aspx.
fao. 2012d. fao and oie unveil global strategy for control of foot-and-mouth disease. Media Center (online), March
12. Rome, it. Available at: http://www.fao.org/news/story/en/item/150417/icode/
fao. 2012e. World food situation: fao Food Price Index. Rome, it. Available at: http://www.fao.org/worldfoodsi-
tuation/wfs-home/foodpricesindex/en/
fao. 2012f. fishstat Database
fao. 2012g. Fish Outlook, May 2012, http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/al989e/al989e00.pdf
fao. 2012h. Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation to Reduce the Vulnerability of Communities and the
Crop, Livestock, Fisheries and Forestry Sectors. Tirty second Regional Conference for Latin America and the
Caribbean, Buenos Aires, Argentina, 26-30 March 2012
fao. 2012i. Food Outlook: Analysis of the World Market. Available at: http://goo.gl/BhxR7.
fao. 2012j. Food Outlook (May). Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep /015/al989s/al989s00.pdf
fao. 2012k. Crop prospects and food situation (March). Available at: http://www.fao.org/
docrep/015/al985s/al985s00.pdf
fao. 2012l. Report on food prices in lac. fao, Santiago de Chile, May
fao.2012m. fao. 2012. Financing of productive activities in small agroforestry producers. Minutes of the meeting.
Santiago, Chile April 17-18 2012.
fao.2012n. fao strategic framework of medium-term cooperation in Family Farming in Latin America and the
Caribbean 2012-2015.
fao.2012o. Dinmica del mercado de la tierra en Amrica Latina y el Caribe. Concentracin y extranjerizacin.
Ofcina Regional de fao, Santiago.
fao.2012p. Voluntary Guidelines on the Responsible Governance of Tenure of Land, Fisheries and Forests in the
Context of National Food Security, Rome, March [online] http://www.fao.org/fleadmin/user_upload/nr/
land_tenure/pdf/vg_en_Final_March_2012.pdf.
fao.2011a. Save to grow: A guide for policymakers on the sustainable intensifcation of agricultural production on
a small scale. Rome. Available at www.fao.org/docrep/014/i2215s/i2215s.pdf.
fao.2011b. Global food losses and food waste. Rome, mayo.
fao.2011c. Outlook for food and nutritional security in Latin America and the Caribbean 2011,Rome, fao
fao.2011d. Forest institutions in South America. Document not published.
B
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
f
a
144 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 145 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
fao.2011e. Mountain forests in a changing world. Available at: http://www.mountainpartnership.org/common/
fles/pdf/web.Tkohler.pdf
fao.2011f. Community based-fre management. fao Forestry Paper 166. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/015/
i2495e/i2495e00.htm
fao.2011g. Community Forestry in Latin America. Final document.
fao.2011h. Assessing forest degradation towards the development of globally applicable guidelines. Documento
de Trabajo, Rome.
fao.2010a. Informe del Taller para el Diagnstico y Seguimiento de la Acuicultura de Pequea Escala y Recursos Li-
mitados en Amrica Latina, Asuncin, Paraguay, 18-20 August 2010, Serie Acuicultura en Latinoamrica N3
fao.2010b. Forest Resources Assessment. Rome, 2011.
fao.2010c. An agenda for Family Farming policy. 31st Regional Conference of fao for Latin America and the
Caribbean - Panama City, Panama.
fao. 2009a. State of Food and Agriculture - Livestock in the balance. Rome, it. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
docrep/012/i0 680e/i0680e.pdf
fao.2009b. Responsible Fish Trade, fao Technical Guidelines for Responsible Fisheries N11, Rome, fao
fao.2006. Cattle ranching and deforestation. Livestock policy brief no. 3. Rome, it. Available at: ftp://ftp.
fao.org/docrep/fao/010/a0262e/a0262e00.pdf
fao.1997. A precautionary approach to capture fsheries and the introduction of species, fao Technical Guidelines
for Responsible Fisheries No. 2, Rome, fao
fao.1995. Code of Conduct for responsible fsheries, Rome, fao
fao-facility. 2010. Practical experiences of compensation mechanisms for water ecosystem services from the forest
in Central America and the Caribbean.
fao & Junta de Castilla y Len. 2011. Examples of Sustainable Forest Management in Latin America and the
Caribbean.
fao/oapn. 2009a. Payment for Environmental Services in Protected Areas of Latin America.
fao/oapn. 2009b. Strengthening the Sustainable Management of Natural Resources in the Protected Areas of
Latin America.
fao-oapn. 2008. Indigenous Peoples and Protected Areas in Latin America.
Federal Government of Brazil. 2009. Territrios da cidadania. Integrao de polticas pblicas para reduzir des-
igualdades, Brasilia.
Fernandes, S. 2006. Smelter Struggle: Trinidad Fishing Community Fights Aluminum Project, Daily Express
September 6, 2006.
Fuglie, K.; Heisey, P.; King, J.; Pray, C.E.; Day-Rubenstein, K.; Schimmelpfennig, D.; Wang, S.L.; Karmarkar-
Deshmukh, R. 2011. Research investments and market structure in the food processing, agricultural input,
and biofuel industries worldwide. Economic Research Report No. err-130. U.S. Department of Agriculture. De-
cember. Available at http://www.ers.usda.gov/publications/err-economic-research-report/err130.aspx
Funes, F. and others (2002), Sustainable Agriculture and Resistance: Transforming Food Production in Cuba,
Oakland, Food First Books.
Funes, F.; Garca, L.; Bourque, M.; Prez, N.; Rosset, P. 2002. Sustainable agriculture and resistance: Transforming
food production in Cuba. Food First Books, Oakland.
Funes-Monzote, F. 2007. Towards sustainable agriculture in Cuba, P.O. Box 4029, pc 10400, La Habana, Cuba.
Available at
http://campus.usal.es/~ehe/Papers/Microsoft%20Word%20-%20Towards%20sustainable%20agriculture%20in%20
Cuba%201st%20August%5B1%5D.pdf
G20. 2011. Ministerial Declaration. Action Plan on Food Price Volatility and Agriculture. Meeting of G20 Agri-
culture Ministers, Paris, 22 and 23 June 2011.
G20. 2012. Inter-Agency Report to the Mexican G20 Presidency. Sustainable agricultural productivity growth and
bridging the gap for small family farms. Available at ictdsd.org/downloads/2012/05/g20_2012-27-april-2.pdf.
Galeano, L. 1997. Las migraciones rurales: una alerta para el mercosur. Agriculture in mercosur, Montevideo,
Inter-American Institute for Cooperation on Agriculture (iica)/Centro Regional Sur.
Gillson, I.; Hewitt, A.; Page, S. 2005. Forthcoming Changes in the eu Banana/Sugar Markets: A Menu of Options
for an Efective eu Transitional Package, Overseas Development Institute, Report Table 26, p.52.
Grenada, Ministry of Finance. 2002. Public Sector Housing Policy and Strategy for Grenada.
gts (Gateway to South America). 2011. News Blog, February 10, 2011. Accessed July 2, 2012. Available at http://
www.gatewaytosouthamerica-newsblog.com/uruguay-has-the-highest-per-capita-consumption-of-milk-in-latin-
america-averaging-between-225-and-230-liters/
Haggerty, R. 1989. Land Tenure and Land Policy in Dominican Republic: A Country Study, Washington, United
States.
Hayami, H., V. W. Ruttan. 1970. Agricultural Productivity Diferences among Countries. Te American Economic
Review Vol. 60, No. 5 (Dec., 1970), pp. 895-911. Available at http://www.jstor.org/stable/1818289
ibge (Brazilian Geographical and Statistical Institute). 2006. Censo agropecurio 2006. Brasil, grandes regies e
unidades da federao, Brasilia.
Ibrahim, M.; Porro, R. y Mauricio, R.M. 2010. Chapter 5: Brazil and Costa Rica - Deforestation and livestock
expansion in the Brazilian legal Amazon and Costa Rica: Drivers, environmental degradation, and policies for
B
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
f
a
146 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 147 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
sustainable land management in P. Gerber, H.A. Mooney, J. Dijkman, S. Tarawali, and C. de Haan., eds., Li-
vestock in a changing landscape: Drivers, consequences, and responses, Vol. 2. Island Press. Available at http://
www.fao.org/docrep/013/am075e/am075e00.pdf
ictsd (International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development). 2012. Bridges Weekly Trade News Digest.
Vol. 16. No. 16. April 25.
idb. 2011. Voluntary mechanism of greenhouse gas mitigation for Colombia. Inter-American Development Bank.
Available at: http://www.iadb.org/es/proyectos/project-information-page,1303.html?id=co-X1008.
idb/fao/eclac/rimisp. 2004. Empleo e ingresos rurales no agrcolas en Amrica Latina. Serie Seminarios y confe-
rencias, N 35, lc/2069-P, eclac, Santiago, Chile.
idf (International Dairy Federation). 2010. Te World Dairy Situation (online). Bulletin 446/2010, Brussels, Bel-
gium. Available at http://www.svenskmjolk.se/Global/Dokument/Dokumentarkiv/Marknadsrapporter/World
Dairy Situation/World Dairy Situation 2010.pdf
imf (International Monetary Fund) 2012a. World Economic Outlook: Update. New Setback, Further Policy
Action Needed, July.
imf. 2012b. World Economic Outlook: Growth Resuming, Dangers Remain, April.
imf. 2012c. World Economic Outlook: Update. Global Recovery Stalls, Downside Risks Intensify, January.
imf. 2012d. imf Primary Commodity Prices. Accessed July 12, 2012. Available at: http://www.imf.org/external/np/
res/commod/index.aspx
imf. 2011a. World Economic Outlook: Slowing Growth, Rising Risks, September.
imf. 2011b. World Economic Outlook: Tensions from the Two-Speed Recovery Unemployment, Commodities,
and Capital Flows, April.
imf. 2011c. World Economic Outlook: Update. Global Recovery Advances but Remains Uneven, January.
incoder (Colombian Institute for Rural Development). 2012. Plan estratgico 2010-2014, Bogota.
indec (National Institute of Statistics and Censuses). 2009. Censo Nacional Agropecuario 2008 cna08. Resultados
provisorios, Buenos Aires.
ine (National Institute of Statistics). 2007. Censo Nacional Agropecuario y Forestal 2007, Santiago, Chile [online].
Available at http://www.censoagropecuario.cl/index2.html
inegi (National Institute of Statistics and Geography). 2007. Censo Agrcola, Ganadero y Forestal 2007, Mexico
City [online]. Available at http://www.inegi.org.mx/est/contenidos/proyectos/agro/ca2007/resultados_agricola/
default.aspx
inra (National Institute for Agricultural Reform). 2010. La tierra vuelve a manos indgenas y campesinas, La Paz.
iuf (International Union of Food, Agricultural, Hotel, Restaurant, Catering, Tobacco and Allied Workers Asso-
ciations). 2011. Fonterra and Nestl call of dairy merger in Chile. April 4, 2011. Available at: http://cms.iuf.
org/?q=node/860.
Kaimowitz, D. & Angelsen, A. 2008. Will livestock intensifcation help save Latin Americas tropical forests? Journal
of Sustainable Forestry 27: 6-24. Available at: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10549810802225168
Kiernan, P. 2012. usda lifts Brazilian pork ban. Dow Jones Newswires. January 11. Accessed July 6, 2012. Available
at: http://www.agriculture.com/markets/analysis/hogs/usda-lifts-brazili-pk-b_14-ar21517
Kilian, L. 2008. Te Economic Efects of Energy Price Shocks. Journal of Economic Literature, 46:4, 871909.
Available at http://goo.gl/ppwdP
Klein, E. 1992. El empleo rural no agrcola en Amrica Latina. Documento de trabajo N 364, Programa Regional
del Empleo para Amrica Latina y el Caribe (prealc), ilo, Santiago de Chile.
Kbrich, C. & Dirven, M. 2007. Caractersticas del empleo rural no agrcola en Amrica Latina con nfasis en los
servicios. Serie Desarrollo Productivo No. 174. eclac, Santiago de Chile.
Laestadius, L.; Potapov, P.; Yaroshenko, A.; Turubanova, S. 2012. La alteracin mundial de los bosques, desde el
espacio. Unasylva 238(62): 8- 13.
Lara, A.; Rey Benayas, J.; Laterra, P.; Manson, R.; Gonzlez, M. 2011. ii Congreso Internacional Servicios Ecosis-
tmicos en los Neotrpicos. Libro Congreso. Asuncin, Paraguay 2011.
lacfc. 2012a. Latin American and Caribbean Forestry Commission. Asuncin, Paraguay, March 5-9 2012. Forests
and Climate Change. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/meeting/024/md128s.pdf.
lacfc. 2012b. Latin American and Caribbean Forestry Commission. Asuncin, Paraguay, March 5-9 2012. Situa-
tion of the Forestry Sector in Latin America and the Caribbean: 2010-2011. Available at: http://www.fao.org/
docrep/meeting/024/md011s.pdf.
LaRed21. 2009. Medidas ante severa sequa en siete departamentos del Uruguay. Available at http://goo.gl/
EbYws
Lobell, D; Schlenker, W.; Costa-Robles, J. 2011. Climate Trends and Global Crop Production Since 1980. Science
29, vol. 333, July.
Martha, G.B.; Alves, E.; Contini, E. 2011. Dimenso econmica de sistemas de integrao lavoura-pecuria. Pesquisa
Agropecuria Brasileira vol. 46, no.10, Braslia, Brazil. Available at: http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_
arttext&pid=S0100-204X2011001000002&lng=en&nrm=iso&tlng=pt
Martins, L. 2011. Pig health issues: Overview of Latin America. PigProgress,net. March 31. Accessed July 10, 2012.
Available at: http://www.pigprogress.net/background/pig-health-issues-overview-of-latin-america-7801.html.
May, P.H.; Millikan, B.; Gebara, M.F. 2011. Te context of redd+ in Brazil: Drivers, agents and institutions. Oc-
casional paper 55. 2 edicin. cifor, Bogor, Indonesia. Available at: http://www.cifor.org/publications/pdf_fles/
OccPapers/op-55.pdf
mda-incra (Ministry of Agricultural Development of Brazil/National Institute for Colonization and Agrarian
Reform). 2010. Publicao especial do Instituto Nacional de Colonizao e Reforma Agrria, No. 02, Decem-
ber.
B
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
f
a
148 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 149 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
mda-incra. 2006. Brazil. ii Plan Nacional de Reforma Agraria, Brasilia.
Mendes, A.A. 2011. Poultry and egg production in South America Consumer behavior trends and perspectives.
Presentation to the European Poultry Club Conference. Buenos Aires, Argentina. October 18. Available at:
http://www.poultryclub.com/fleadmin/ european-clubs/poultryclub/binary/activities/Presentation-A-Mendes-
Arg-2011.pdf
Meneses-Tovar, C.L. 2012. El ndice normalizado diferencial de la vegetacin como indicador de la degradacin
del bosque. Unasylva 238(62): 39-46.
MercoPress. 2011. Argentina among top world exporters of chicken meat, while beef loses clout. South Atlantic
news Agency. November 1. Montevideo, Uruguay. Accessed July 6, 2012. Available at: http://en.mercopress.
com/2011/11/01/argentina-among-top-world-exporters-of-chicken-meat-while-beef-loses-clout
mgap (Ministry of Livestock, Agriculture and Fisheries of Uruguay) 2011. Anuario Estadstico Agropecuario 2011.
Montevideo, Agriculture and Livestock Stats Ofce (diea).
mif (Multilateral Investment Fund). 2011. Growth: Remittances to Latin America and the Caribbean, Inter-
American Development Bank (idb).
Milder, J.C.; Scherr S.J.; Bracer C. 2010. Trends and future potential of payment for ecosystem services to alleviate
rural poverty in developing countries. Ecology and Society 15(2):4. Available at: http://www.ecologyandsociety.
org/vol15/iss2/art4/
Ministry of Agricultural Development. 2010. Strategic Plan of Action for the Agriculture Sector 2010-2014 - Pa-
nama City, Panama. 33 pp.
Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Fisheries of Saint Lucia. 2007. Saint Lucia Census of Agriculture: Final
Report, Corporate Planning Unit, November.
Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock and Fisheries. 2010. Strategic Agrifood Plan (pea2) 2010-2016 - Buenos Aires,
Argentina. 171 pp.
Ministry of Finance, Government of Grenada. 2002. Public Sector Housing Policy and Strategy for Grenada,
Saint George.
Morse, E. 2012. Expecting the unexpected: oil in 2012. A year of tail risks, paper prepared for the Citigroup,
February.
Nash, J. 2012. Te greening (?) of agriculture in Latin America. Latin American & the Caribbean: Opportunities
for all. World Bank. Accessed July 9, 2012. Available at: http://blogs.worldbank.org/latinamerica/node/633
Nestl. 2011. Nestl joins new partnership to improve dairy farming in Brazil. News & Features. December 7, 2011.
Available at: http://www.nestle.com/Media/NewsAndFeatures/ Pages/Brazil_dairy_partnership.aspx
odi (Overseas Development Institute). 2011. Making the eus Common Agricultural Policy Coherent with Deve-
lopment Goals. Briefng paper 69.
oecd-fao (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development United Nations Food and Agriculture
Organization). 2012. Database - Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020. Available at: http://www.agri-outlook.org/
document/15/0,3746
oecd-fao. 2011. Agricultural Outlook 2011-2020. Accessed July 10,2012. Available at: http://www.agri-outlook.org/
document/15/0,3746,en _36774715_36775671_48172367_1_1_1_1,00.html
oecs (Organization of Eastern Caribbean States). 2002. Human Development Report, 2002.
oi Group. 2012. Sustainable agricultural productivity growth and bridging the gap for small-family farms. Intgera-
gency Report to Mexican G20 Presidency. Bioversity International; cgiar, fao, ifad, ifpri, iica, oecd, unctad,
un-hltf on Global Food Security; the World Bank and wto. June.
Pacheco, P.; Aguilar-Sten, M.; Brner, J.; Etter, A.; Putzel, L.; Vera Daz, M.C. 2011. Landscape transformation
in tropical Latin America: Assessing trends and policy Implications for redd+. Forests 2:1-29.
Palmer, N. 2012. Climate Conversations - Livestock: Cure or curse? AlertNet, a Tomson Reuters Foundation Ser-
vice, May 24. Available at: http://www.trust.org/alertnet/blogs/climate-conversations/livestock-cure-or-curse/
Pereira, P.A.A.; Martha, G.B.; Santana, C.A.M.; Alves, E. 2012. Te development of Brazilian agriculture: future
technological challenges and opportunities. Agriculture & Food Security 1:4. Available at: http://www.agricul-
tureandfoodsecurity.com/content/1/1/4/
Peters, M.; Rao, I.; Fisher, M.; Subbarao, G.; Martens, S.; Herrero, M.; van der Hoek, R.; Schultze-Kraft, R.;
Miles, J.; Castro, A.; Graefe, S.; Tiemann, T.; Ayarza, M.; Hyman, G. 2012. Chapter 11:.Tropical Forage-based
systems to mitigate greenhouse gas emissions in Issues in Tropical Agriculture, Eco-Efciency: From Vision
to Reality. ciat (Centro International de Agricultura Tropical), Cali, Colombia. Available at: http://www.ciat.
cgiar.org/publications/Documents/chapter_11_eco_efciency.pdf
Petition Submitted to the Inter-American Commission of Human Rights Organization of American States 2009,
Te Kalia Indigenous Community of Maho and Te Association of Indigenous Village Leaders in Suriname
Against Te Republic of Suriname.
Pica, G.; Pica-Ciamarra, U.; Otte, J. 2008. Te livestock sector in the World Development Report 2008: Re-assessing
the policy priorities. Living from livestock research report no. 08-07. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative, Food
and Agriculture Organization, Rome, it. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/
docarc/ rep_0807_wdrlivestock_up_et_al_080805.pdf.16161612
Pica-Cimarra, U. 2005. Livestock policies for poverty alleviation: theory and practical evidence from Africa, Asia,
and Latin America. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy Initiative (pplpi) working paper no. 27, Living from livestock.
Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, it. Available at: http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/
pplpi/docarc/wp27.pdf
Pienkos, A. 2006. Caribbean Labour Migration: Minimizing Losses and Optimizing Benefts, ilo Subregional
Ofce for the Caribbean.
Pieiro, D. 2011. El caso de Uruguay. Study carried out for the project Dinmicas en el mercado de la tierra en
Amrica Latina, Santiago, Chile, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (fao).
profor (Program on Forests), fao. 2011. Framework for assessing and monitoring forest governance. Rome.
Progressive Farmer. 2012. Weather report. Available at: http://goo.gl/sxuad
B
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
f
a
150 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 151 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Reardon, T., Berdegue, J., Escobar, G. (Eds.). 2001. Special issue on non-farm employment, World Development,
Vol. 29 (3).
Reinhart, C.; Reinhart V.; Rogof, K. 2012. Debt overhangs: past and present, nber Working Paper, No. 18015,
Cambridge, National Bureau of Economic Research (nber) April.
Renewables. 2012. Global Status Report (Paris: ren21 Secretariat). Available at: http://bit.ly/ren21_gsr2012
Reydon, B. & Cornlio F. (eds.). 2006. Mercados de terras no Brasil: estrutura e dinmica, Brasilia Ministry of
Agricultural Development of Brazil, Agricultural Studies and Rural Development Unit (nead).
Rodrguez, A. & Meneses J. 2011. Transformaciones rurales en Amrica Latina y sus relaciones con la poblacin
rural. Documento presentado en la Reunin de expertos sobre poblacin, territorio y desarrollo sostenible,
Santiago de Chile, 16-17August.
Rodrguez, A. & Meneses J. 2010. Condiciones socioeconmicas y laborales de los hogares rurales en doce pases
de Amrica Latina. Documento presentado en el cuadragsimo octavo Congreso de la Sociedad Brasilea de
Economa, Administracin y Sociologa Rural (sober), Campo Grande, 25-28 July.
San Juan, Z. 2010. Mexico: Dairy and products semi-annual. Gain Report No. mx0034. Foreign Agriculture Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. May 5. Available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/Recent gain
Publications/Dairy and Products Semi-annual_Mexico City_Mexico_5-13-2010.pdf
Snchez, H. 2009. Periurbanizacin y espacios rurales en la periferia de las ciudades, Revista de estudios agrarios,
No. 41, Mexico City, Procuradura Agraria, Direccin General de Estudios y Publicaciones..
Schejtman, A. & Berdegu J. 2007. Desarrollo territorial rural, Territorios rurales: movimientos sociales y desa-
rrollo territorial rural en Amrica Latina, J. Bengoa (ed.), Santiago, Chile, Catalonia/Latin American Center
for Rural Development (rimisp).
Seplveda, S.; Rodrguez, A.; Echeverri, R.; Portilla, M. 2003. El enfoque territorial del desarrollo rural, San Jos,
iica, August.
Silva, J.F. 2012. Brazil Poultry and products semi-annual poultry report. Gain Report No. 0801. Foreign Agriculture
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. February 14. Available at: http://gain.fas.usda.gov/
Recent gain Publications/Poultry and Products Semi-annual_Brasilia_Brazil_14-2-2012.pdf
Soto, F. & Klein, E. (Coordinadores). 2012. Polticas de mercado de trabajo y pobreza rural en Amrica Latina,
Tomo ii. fao, eclac, ilo, Santiago de Chile.
Soto, F. & Klein, E. 2011. Polticas de mercado de trabajo y pobreza rural en Amrica Latina. fao, eclac, ilo,
Santiago de Chile.
Sotomayor, O. (2008), Governance and Tenure of Land and Natural Resources in Latin America, fao, Rome.
Sotomayor, O.; Rodrguez, A.; Rodrigues, M. 2011. Competitiveness, sustainability and social inclusion in agricul-
ture: New directions in the design of policies in Latin America and the Caribbean. eclac, 113. 345pp.
Stads, G.J. & Beintema, N.M. 2009. Public agricultural research in Latin America and the Caribbean: Investment
and capacity trends. Agricultural Science and Technology Indicators (asti) Synthesis Report. International Food
Policy research Institute (ifpri) and Inter-American Development Bank (idb). March. Available at: http://www.
asti.cgiar.org/pdf/lac_Syn_Report.pdf.
Steinfeld, H.; Gerber, P.; Opio, C. 2010. Chapter 16: Responses on environmental issues in H. Steinfeld, H.A.
Mooney, F. Schneider, and L.E. Neville, eds. Livestock in a changing landscape: Drivers, consequences, and
responses, Vol. 1. Island Press. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/am074e/am074e00.pdf.
Tornton P.K., Kruska R.L., Henninger N., Kristjanson P.M., Reid R.S., Atieno F., Odero A.N.; Ndegwa T.
2002. Mapping poverty and livestock in the developing world. ilri (International Livestock Research Institu-
te), Nairobi, Kenya. Available at: http://www.ilri.org/InfoServ/Webpub/fulldocs/InvestAnim/Book2/media/
pdf_chapters/B2_Front.pdf
Tollefson, J. 2010. Te Global Farm. Nature 466: 554-556. Available at: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100728/
pdf/466554a.pdf
unep (United Nations Environment Program). 2010. Perspectivas del Medio Ambiente: Amrica
Latina y El Caribe.geo-alc3. 2009. Nuevo Acuerdo Verde Global Informe de Poltica, Empleos verdes: Hacia
el trabajo decente en un mundo sostenible y con bajas emisiones de carbono.
upi (United Press International). 2012. South America cattle outbreak threat lingers. June 28. Available at: http://
www.upi.com/Business_News/Energy-Resources/2012/06/28/S-America-cattle-outbreak-threat-lingers/upi-
26911340900875/
Upton, M. 2004. Te role of livestock in economic development and poverty reduction. Pro-Poor Livestock Policy
Initiative Report No. 10. Living from livestock, Food and Agriculture Organization, Rome, it. Available at:
http://www.fao.org/ag/againfo/programmes/en/pplpi/docarc/wp10.pdf
Urioste, M. 2011. Concentracin y extranjerizacin de la tierra en Bolivia, Fundacin tierra, La Paz.
usda (U.S. Department of Agriculture). 2012a. usda Agricultural Projections to 2021. Interagency Agricultural
Projections Committee. Available at: http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/oce121/oce121.pdf
usda. 2012b. Production, Supply, and Distribution Online, Foreign Agriculture Service, Washington, dc, us.
Accessed June and July 2012. Available at: http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/
U.S. Government. 2010. Changes in disease status of the Brazilian state of Santa Catarina with regard to certain
ruminant and swine diseases. Federal Register Doc. 2010-28976, fled 11-15-10. Available at: https://www.fede-
ralregister.gov/articles/2010/11/16/2010-28976/changes-in-disease-status-of-the-brazilian-state-of-santa-catarina-
with-regard-to-certain-ruminant.
us White House. 2012. National Bioeconomy Blueprint. Washington, D.C., Te White House, April.
Valdes, A. & Foster W. 2012. Policies and mechanisms that can help poor countries in high price periods, presented
at Securing food in uncertain markets: Challenges for poor, net food-importing countries, sponsored by ictsd
and fao, Geneva, March 23, 2012.
Valds et al. 2008. Evolucin del ingreso agrcola real en Amrica Latina, 1990-2005:evidencia en base a cuentas na-
cionales y encuestas de hogares. Revista Espaola de Estudios Agrosociales y Pesqueros, No. 218, 2008 (71-98)
B
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
f
a
152 The Outlook for Agriculture and Rural Development in the Americas eclac fao iica 153 A Perspective on Latin America and the Caribbean
Villalobos, V. 2012. Tizimin, donde el suelo pedregoso produce maz . Published by La Fragua, February 14.
Via Concha y Toro. 2011. Corporate overview 2011. Available at http://www.conchaytoro.com/es/inversionis-
tas/
Von Broun, J. 2008. Food and Financial Crisis: Implications for Agriculture and the Poor. ifpri, Washington,
D.C.
Williams, Allan N. 2011. Sustainable farming in a high nature value environment, Port of Spain, Te EcoAgri-
Culture Project, Te Cropper Foundation, Trinidad & Tobago.
Williams, Allan N. 2005. Turks & Caicos Islands crown land policy: a brief analysis of the economic and fnancial
aspects. Mission report.
World Bank. 2012. Global Economic Prospects: Uncertainties and Vulnerabilities, Washington, D.C., January.
World Bank. 2012. Database of World Bank Indicators. Available at http://goo.gl/hkvrq
World Bank. 2007. World Development Report 2008: Agriculture for Development. Available at http://goo.
gl/8ys7v
Worldwatch Institute. 2011. Biofuels Regain Momentum By Sam Shrank and Farhad Farahmand, August 30, 2011.
Available at http://vitalsigns.worldwatch.org/vs-trend/biofuels-regain-momentum
wto. 2012. Report on G-20 Trade Measures (Mid-October 2011 to Mid-May 2012). May 31.
Wurmann, C. 2011. Regional Review of the Current Situation and Trends in the Development of Aquaculture in
Latin America and the Caribbean-2010, fao, Fishing and Agriculture Circular 1061/3, Rome, fao
Wurmann, C. 2010. Brazilian Aquaculture to 2025: Goals and Strategies. Consultancy Report for the Ministry of
Fisheries and Aquaculture, Brazil, fao/mpa project, Santiago-Brasilia
B
i
b
l
i
o
g
r
a
f
a
Statistical Appendix
Countries
IMF
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
World -0,6 5,3 3,9 3,5 3,9
Advanced economies -3,6 3,2 1,6 1,4 1,9
United States -3,5 3,0 1,7 2,0 2,3
Euro Zone -4,3 1,9 1,4 -0,3 0,7
Emerging economies
2,8 7,5 6,2 5,6 5,9
China 9,2 10,4 9,2 8,0 8,5
Latin America & the Caribbean -1,6 6,2 4,5 3,4 4,2
Countries
World Bank
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
World (1) -2,3 4,1 2,7 2,5 3,0
World (2) -0,9 5,1 3,7 3,3 3,9
High-income countries -3,7 3,0 1,6 1,4 1,9
United States -3,5 3,0 1,7 2,1 2,4
Euro Zone -4,2 1,8 1,6 -0,3 0,7
Developing countries 2,0 7,4 6,1 5,3 5,9
China 9,2 10,4 9,2 8,2 8,6
Latin America & the Caribbean -2,0 6,1 4,3 3,5 4,1
Countries
DAES - United Nations
2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
World -2 4,1 2,7 2,5 3,1
Developed economies -3,5 2,7 1,4 1,2 1,8
United States -2,6 3,0 1,7 2,1 2,3
Euro Zone -4,1 1,9 1,5 -0,3 0,9
Developing economies 2,4 7,5 5,9 5,3 5,8
China 9,1 10,4 9,2 8,3 8,5
Latin America & the Caribbean -2,1 6,0 4,3 3,7 4,2
Source: imf, World Economic Outlook Abril 2012 and Update July 2012
World Bank, Global Economic Prospects January and June 2012
un-desa, World Economic Situation and Prospects 2011 and Update mid-2012
Table A1. Global growth projections
Annual rate of gdp growth, in real terms, by country group
Countries
ECLAC IMF
2009 2010 2011a 2009 2010 2011a 2012b 2013b
Antigua & Barbuda -11,9 -7,9 -2,1 -10,3 -8,9 -0,5 1,0 2,5
Argentina 0,9 9,2 8,9 0,9 9,2 8,9 4,2 4,0
Bahamas -5,4 0,9 2,0 -5,4 1,0 2,0 2,5 2,7
Barbados -3,7 0,2 1,0 -4,2 0,2 0,5 0,9 1,5
Belize -0,0 2,9 2,5 -0,0 2,7 2,5 2,8 2,5
Bolivia (Plurinational State of ) 3,4 4,1 5,1 3,4 4,1 5,1 5,0 5,0
Brazil -0,3 7,5 2,7 -0,3 7,5 2,7 3,0 4,2
Chile -1,0 6,1 6,0 -0,9 6,1 5,9 4,3 4,5
Colombia 1,7 4,0 5,9 1,7 4,0 5,9 4,7 4,4
Costa Rica -1,0 4,7 4,2 -1,0 4,7 4,2 4,0 4,2
Cuba 1,4 2,4 2,5 na na na na na
Dominica -0,7 0,9 0,9 -0,7 0,3 0,5 1,5 1,8
Ecuador 0,4 3,6 8,0 0,4 3,6 7,8 4,5 3,9
El Salvador -3,1 1,4 1,5 -3,1 1,4 1,4 2,0 2,5
Granada -6,6 -0,0 2,1 -5,7 -1,3 1,1 1,5 2,0
Guatemala 0,5 2,9 3,9 0,5 2,8 3,8 3,1 3,2
Guyana 3,3 4,4 4,8 3,3 4,4 4,2 3,9 6,3
Haiti 2,9 -5,4 5,6 2,9 -5,4 5,6 7,8 6,9
Honduras -2,1 2,8 3,2 -2,1 2,8 3,6 3,5 3,5
Jamaica -3,0 -1,3 1,3 -3,1 -1,4 1,5 1,0 1,0
Mexico -6,3 5,6 3,9 -6,3 5,5 4,0 3,6 3,7
Nicaragua -1,5 4,5 4,7 -1,5 4,5 4,7 3,7 4,0
Panama 3,9 7,6 10,6 3,9 7,6 10,6 7,5 6,6
Paraguay -3,8 15,0 4,0 -3,8 15,0 3,8 -1,5 8,5
Peru 0,9 8,8 6,9 0,9 8,8 6,9 5,5 6,0
Dominican Republic 3,5 7,8 4,5 3,5 7,8 4,5 4,5 4,5
Saint Kitts & Nevis -6,9 -2,4 4,5 -5,6 -2,7 -2,0 1,0 1,8
San Vicente & the Grenadines -2,2 -2,8 2,6 -2,3 -1,8 -0,4 2,0 2,0
Saint Lucia -1,1 3,2 2,5 -1,3 3,4 0,2 1,9 2,4
Suriname 7,7 7,3 4,5 3,5 4,5 4,5 4,9 5,4
Trinidad & Tobago -3,0 -0,0 -1,4 -3,3 -0,0 -1,3 1,7 2,4
Uruguay 2,4 8,9 5,7 2,4 8,9 5,7 3,5 4,0
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic
of )
-3,2 -1,5 4,2 -3,2 -1,5 4,2 4,7 3,2
Canada na na na -2,8 3,2 2,5 2,1 2,2
United States na na na -3,5 3,0 1,7 2,1 2,4
Latin America & the Caribbean -2,0 6,0 4,3 -1,6 6,2 4,5 3,7 4,1
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
C
o
n
s
u
m
e
r
p
r
i
c
e
i
n
d
i
c
e
s
(
a
v
e
r
a
g
e
r
a
t
e
s
o
f
a
n
n
u
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
)
P
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
p
o
w
e
r
o
f
e
x
p
o
r
t
s
o
f
g
o
o
d
s
&
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
s
(
i
n
d
i
c
e
2
0
0
5
=
1
0
0
)
I
n
c
o
m
e
f
r
o
m
r
e
m
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
s
b
y
m
i
g
r
a
n
t
w
o
r
k
e
r
s
(
m
i
l
l
i
o
n
s
o
f
U
S
$
)
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
o
o
d
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
s
2
0
0
5
-
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
5
-
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
5
-
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
1
2
a
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
9
,
5
6
,
3
1
0
,
5
9
,
0
1
0
,
3
2
,
8
1
4
,
4
7
,
9
1
2
1
,
9
1
3
2
,
7
1
5
3
,
6
B
a
h
a
m
a
s
2
,
7
2
,
1
1
,
8
1
,
0
4
,
5
4
,
8
-
0
,
8
1
,
4
n
a
n
a
n
a
B
a
r
b
a
d
o
s
6
,
5
3
,
6
5
,
8
7
,
9
8
,
9
6
,
7
3
,
7
5
,
8
n
a
n
a
n
a
B
o
l
i
v
i
a
(
P
l
u
r
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
)
8
,
1
3
,
3
2
,
5
9
,
5
1
2
,
4
3
,
9
3
,
4
1
3
,
6
1
3
1
,
4
1
4
0
,
1
1
6
4
,
0
B
r
a
z
i
l
5
,
1
4
,
9
5
,
0
6
,
2
5
,
7
5
,
8
6
,
1
8
,
2
1
1
5
,
0
1
1
2
,
9
1
4
0
,
4
C
h
i
l
e
4
,
9
1
,
5
1
,
5
3
,
0
7
,
7
4
,
1
2
,
8
6
,
0
1
2
5
,
0
1
2
3
,
0
1
4
8
,
7
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
5
,
5
4
,
2
2
,
3
3
,
2
7
,
8
4
,
4
1
,
4
4
,
6
1
2
1
,
0
1
3
9
,
3
1
5
4
,
7
4
.
0
2
4
4
.
1
6
8
9
6
0
C
o
s
t
a
R
i
c
a
1
2
,
0
7
,
8
5
,
7
4
,
7
1
5
,
9
9
,
5
5
,
2
5
,
3
1
1
5
,
9
1
2
6
,
5
1
3
7
,
0
5
0
5
4
8
8
n
a
C
u
b
a
4
,
2
-
1
,
2
1
,
3
1
,
3
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
1
0
8
,
3
n
a
n
a
E
c
u
a
d
o
r
4
,
0
5
,
2
3
,
6
4
,
0
7
,
2
6
,
1
4
,
9
6
,
1
1
1
9
,
5
1
2
0
,
5
1
3
7
,
7
2
.
5
9
2
2
.
6
7
2
n
a
E
l
S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
5
,
1
0
,
5
0
,
9
4
,
9
6
,
8
-
3
,
6
0
,
3
6
,
9
1
0
5
,
7
9
8
,
9
1
0
7
,
1
3
.
4
3
1
3
.
6
4
8
9
4
6
G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
8
,
5
1
,
9
3
,
9
5
,
8
1
1
,
3
2
,
0
3
,
8
1
0
,
3
1
0
7
,
7
1
1
8
,
9
1
2
8
,
5
4
.
1
2
7
4
.
3
7
8
1
.
0
5
8
H
a
i
t
i
1
3
,
1
-
1
,
8
5
,
7
7
,
9
1
4
,
8
-
2
,
6
5
,
0
9
,
8
1
0
5
,
8
1
2
2
,
6
1
0
4
,
7
H
o
n
d
u
r
a
s
8
,
2
5
,
5
4
,
7
6
,
6
1
0
,
2
3
,
6
1
,
8
6
,
0
9
7
,
5
8
7
,
2
9
3
,
3
2
.
5
2
4
2
.
7
5
0
4
1
4
J
a
m
a
i
c
a
1
3
,
9
3
,
1
1
3
,
1
6
,
9
1
6
,
3
9
,
0
1
2
,
8
-
2
,
9
n
a
n
a
n
a
1
.
9
0
7
2
.
0
2
6
3
1
7
M
e
x
i
c
o
4
,
2
5
,
3
4
,
2
3
,
0
5
,
8
8
,
7
3
,
9
4
,
6
1
1
0
,
0
9
4
,
9
1
1
6
,
4
2
1
.
2
7
0
2
2
.
7
3
0
5
.
3
7
2
N
i
c
a
r
a
g
u
a
1
2
,
4
3
,
0
5
,
9
7
,
7
1
6
,
4
3
,
5
4
,
4
8
,
3
1
1
2
,
7
1
3
5
,
3
1
5
8
,
7
8
2
4
9
1
2
2
5
0
P
a
n
a
m
a
4
,
1
2
,
4
3
,
5
5
,
4
6
,
8
5
,
8
2
,
9
-
4
,
3
1
1
7
,
4
1
4
7
,
6
1
4
9
,
6
P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y
8
,
7
2
,
6
4
,
8
8
,
1
1
3
,
3
1
,
5
8
,
4
1
3
,
5
1
4
0
,
7
1
6
8
,
4
2
1
9
,
1
P
e
r
u
2
,
8
2
,
9
1
,
5
3
,
3
3
,
8
4
,
2
2
,
5
4
,
6
1
2
3
,
1
1
2
2
,
2
1
4
4
,
0
D
o
m
i
n
i
c
a
n
R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
7
,
1
1
,
4
6
,
3
8
,
0
5
,
8
3
,
9
4
,
3
8
,
2
1
0
2
,
7
9
7
,
4
1
0
3
,
4
2
.
9
9
8
3
.
2
0
1
n
a
S
a
i
n
t
L
u
c
i
a
4
,
7
1
,
5
1
,
9
-
0
,
3
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
S
u
r
i
n
a
m
e
1
0
,
5
-
0
,
1
5
,
1
1
6
,
8
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
T
r
i
n
i
d
a
d
&
T
o
b
a
g
o
8
,
8
7
,
0
1
0
,
5
4
,
1
2
2
,
4
1
1
,
6
2
2
,
8
7
,
7
n
a
n
a
n
a
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
6
,
8
7
,
1
6
,
7
7
,
5
9
,
8
6
,
1
6
,
9
9
,
1
1
1
3
,
0
1
4
4
,
0
1
6
3
,
4
V
e
n
e
z
u
e
l
a
(
B
o
l
i
v
a
r
i
a
n
R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
f
)
1
9
,
9
2
8
,
6
2
9
,
1
2
4
,
5
2
8
,
7
3
0
,
5
3
4
,
6
2
6
,
1
1
1
9
,
3
9
6
,
8
1
0
3
,
3
Table A2. Growth Projections in the Americas
Annual rate of gdp growth, in real terms, by country
T
a
b
l
e
A
3
.
I
n
f
a
t
i
o
n
,
p
u
r
c
h
a
s
i
n
g
p
o
w
e
r
o
f
e
x
p
o
r
t
s
&
r
e
m
i
t
t
a
n
c
e
s
a
R
e
f
e
r
s
t
o
t
h
e
f
r
s
t
q
u
a
r
t
e
r
.
J
a
n
u
a
r
y
a
n
d
F
e
b
r
u
a
r
y
o
n
l
y
i
n
t
h
e
c
a
s
e
o
f
H
o
n
d
u
r
a
s
&
J
a
m
a
i
c
a
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
e
c
l
a
c
:
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
L
a
t
i
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
&
t
h
e
C
a
r
i
b
b
e
a
n
:
O
w
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
o
f
f
c
i
a
l
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
r
e
v
i
s
e
d
a
s
o
f
A
u
g
u
s
t
2
0
1
2
a Estimations
b Projection
Sources: eclac: Economic Commission for Latin America & the Caribbean: Own estimations based on
offcial sources, information updated May 2012
International Monetary Fund, World Economic Outlook Database, April 2012
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
G
r
o
s
s
D
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
P
r
o
d
u
c
t
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
(
c
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
2
0
0
5
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
p
e
r
c
a
p
i
t
a
)
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k
,
h
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
f
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
&
f
s
h
i
n
g
a
s
a
p
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
o
t
a
l
V
a
l
u
e
A
d
d
e
d
(
%
)
A
n
n
u
a
l
v
a
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
v
a
l
u
e
a
d
d
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
,
l
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k
,
h
u
n
t
i
n
g
,
f
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
&
f
s
h
i
n
g
s
e
c
t
o
r
(
%
)
2
0
0
5
-
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
5
-
0
8
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
2
0
0
9
2
0
1
0
2
0
1
1
A
n
t
i
g
u
a
&
B
a
r
b
u
d
a
1
3
.
5
3
9
1
2
.
4
9
6
1
1
.
3
7
8
1
1
.
0
1
5
2
,
0
1
,
5
2
,
1
2
,
3
-
2
5
,
2
2
6
,
7
6
,
8
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
5
.
2
5
9
5
.
7
6
2
6
.
2
2
9
6
.
7
1
6
9
,
0
7
,
1
8
,
3
7
,
6
-
1
5
,
7
2
8
,
0
-
2
,
2
B
a
h
a
m
a
s
2
4
.
1
4
4
2
2
.
1
4
0
2
2
.
0
2
4
2
2
.
2
0
6
2
,
0
2
,
1
2
,
1
2
,
3
4
,
6
4
,
2
7
,
2
B
a
r
b
a
d
o
s
1
5
.
1
8
3
1
4
.
8
6
8
1
4
.
8
9
5
1
4
.
9
8
9
1
,
6
1
,
7
1
,
6
n
a
3
,
0
-
6
,
3
n
a
B
e
l
i
z
e
4
.
0
4
0
4
.
0
1
7
4
.
0
4
1
4
.
0
6
3
1
2
,
5
9
,
9
9
,
7
n
a
-
2
,
2
0
,
6
n
a
B
o
l
i
v
i
a
(
P
l
u
r
i
n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
S
t
a
t
e
o
f
)
1
.
0
8
9
1
.
1
6
4
1
.
1
9
2
1
.
2
3
2
1
3
,
9
1
3
,
2
1
2
,
6
1
2
,
4
3
,
7
-
1
,
2
3
,
2
B
r
a
z
i
l
5
.
0
1
4
5
.
2
6
2
5
.
6
0
9
5
.
7
1
5
6
,
8
6
,
8
6
,
7
6
,
8
-
3
,
1
6
,
3
3
,
9
C
h
i
l
e
8
.
0
2
8
8
.
2
2
8
8
.
6
4
6
9
.
0
7
8
4
,
5
4
,
3
4
,
2
4
,
4
-
5
,
6
2
,
3
1
1
,
8
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
3
.
6
4
9
3
.
8
5
4
3
.
9
5
3
4
.
1
3
1
8
,
0
7
,
5
7
,
3
7
,
0
-
0
,
7
1
,
0
2
,
2
C
o
s
t
a
R
i
c
a
5
.
0
3
6
5
.
2
0
8
5
.
3
7
9
5
.
5
2
7
9
,
1
8
,
5
8
,
6
8
,
4
-
2
,
8
6
,
4
0
,
5
C
u
b
a
4
.
3
5
5
4
.
8
3
3
4
.
9
4
8
5
.
0
7
1
4
,
0
3
,
8
3
,
5
n
a
-
0
,
2
-
6
,
0
n
a
D
o
m
i
n
i
c
a
5
.
7
3
3
6
.
2
9
3
6
.
3
5
3
6
.
4
1
0
1
3
,
1
1
3
,
0
1
1
,
6
1
2
,
0
1
,
5
-
1
0
,
6
6
,
0
E
c
u
a
d
o
r
2
.
9
6
5
3
.
1
1
9
3
.
1
9
6
3
.
4
1
4
7
,
2
7
,
6
7
,
4
7
,
4
1
,
5
-
0
,
2
6
,
4
E
l
S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
2
.
9
5
2
2
.
9
3
6
2
.
9
6
2
2
.
9
8
9
1
1
,
1
1
1
,
5
1
1
,
7
1
1
,
1
-
2
,
9
3
,
1
-
3
,
8
G
r
a
n
a
d
a
6
.
7
9
9
6
.
4
7
2
6
.
4
6
9
6
.
5
4
4
4
,
4
5
,
7
5
,
4
5
,
6
1
2
,
1
-
6
,
0
4
,
2
G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
2
.
2
3
1
2
.
2
5
6
2
.
2
6
6
2
.
2
9
7
1
2
,
8
1
2
,
8
1
2
,
4
1
2
,
4
3
,
8
-
0
,
3
3
,
6
G
u
y
a
n
a
1
.
8
9
8
2
.
0
7
1
2
.
1
5
8
2
.
2
5
6
2
2
,
8
2
1
,
0
2
0
,
6
2
0
,
0
1
,
3
2
,
3
2
,
7
H
a
i
t
i
4
5
2
4
5
9
4
2
7
4
4
4
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
n
a
H
o
n
d
u
r
a
s
1
.
5
0
0
1
.
5
0
7
1
.
5
1
9
1
.
5
3
7
1
3
,
5
1
3
,
2
1
3
,
1
1
3
,
4
-
1
,
4
1
,
8
5
,
6
J
a
m
a
i
c
a
4
.
2
6
8
4
.
1
3
5
4
.
0
6
8
4
.
1
0
6
6
,
2
6
,
9
7
,
1
n
a
1
2
,
1
2
,
2
n
a
M
e
x
i
c
o
8
.
3
9
1
7
.
9
5
3
8
.
3
1
3
8
.
5
5
8
3
,
4
3
,
5
3
,
4
3
,
2
-
4
,
4
4
,
0
-
3
,
0
N
i
c
a
r
a
g
u
a
9
2
6
9
2
6
9
5
6
9
8
8
1
8
,
8
1
9
,
2
1
9
,
6
1
9
,
2
-
0
,
2
6
,
5
2
,
5
P
a
n
a
m
a
5
.
4
0
4
6
.
2
3
0
6
.
6
0
1
7
.
1
9
0
6
,
4
5
,
3
4
,
2
4
,
0
-
7
,
8
-
1
4
,
6
-
2
,
9
P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y
1
.
3
3
3
1
.
3
3
4
1
.
5
0
9
1
.
5
4
3
2
4
,
2
2
1
,
8
2
5
,
6
2
5
,
7
-
1
7
,
3
3
4
,
2
4
,
2
P
e
r
u
3
.
1
7
5
3
.
5
3
5
3
.
8
0
1
4
.
0
1
6
7
,
0
6
,
7
6
,
4
6
,
3
1
,
7
3
,
2
4
,
9
D
o
m
i
n
i
c
a
n
R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
4
.
0
5
7
4
.
4
8
8
4
.
7
7
3
4
.
9
2
4
7
,
1
7
,
2
7
,
1
7
,
2
1
2
,
5
5
,
5
5
,
5
S
a
i
n
t
K
i
t
t
s
&
N
e
v
i
s
1
1
.
3
9
0
1
0
.
8
1
5
1
0
.
5
5
4
1
0
.
8
2
1
1
,
4
1
,
2
1
,
2
1
,
3
-
1
0
,
6
-
1
,
9
6
,
7
S
a
n
V
i
c
e
n
t
e
&
t
h
e
G
r
e
n
a
d
i
n
e
s
5
.
4
6
2
5
.
5
8
4
5
.
4
3
0
5
.
5
7
1
6
,
4
7
,
5
6
,
2
5
,
3
1
5
,
2
-
1
8
,
6
-
1
4
,
4
S
a
i
n
t
L
u
c
i
a
5
.
6
5
8
5
.
8
2
4
5
.
9
4
0
6
.
0
2
0
3
,
8
4
,
2
3
,
4
2
,
5
-
5
,
4
-
1
5
,
7
-
2
8
,
0
S
u
r
i
n
a
m
e
3
.
0
2
6
3
.
4
0
2
3
.
6
1
4
3
.
7
4
9
6
,
3
6
,
6
7
,
2
7
,
2
1
2
,
1
1
5
,
8
3
,
6
T
r
i
n
i
d
a
d
&
T
o
b
a
g
o
1
3
.
7
8
4
1
4
.
2
0
8
1
4
.
1
5
2
1
3
.
9
0
6
0
,
5
0
,
3
0
,
5
0
,
5
-
3
2
,
4
6
0
,
2
-
4
,
1
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
5
.
6
4
4
6
.
2
8
9
6
.
8
2
6
7
.
1
9
2
9
,
4
8
,
4
7
,
8
7
,
7
1
,
6
0
,
5
4
,
4
V
e
n
e
z
u
e
l
a
(
B
o
l
i
v
a
r
i
a
n
R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
o
f
)
6
.
0
3
0
6
.
1
9
9
6
.
0
1
0
6
.
1
6
4
3
,
7
3
,
8
3
,
9
3
,
6
1
,
0
0
,
9
-
2
,
4
L
a
t
i
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
&
t
h
e
C
a
r
i
b
b
e
a
n
5
.
2
1
4
5
.
3
2
2
5
.
5
7
8
5
.
7
5
6
5
,
7
5
,
6
5
,
7
5
,
6
-
3
,
8
6
,
6
1
,
6
A
m
r
i
c
a
L
a
t
i
n
a
5
.
1
8
7
5
.
2
9
7
5
.
5
5
7
5
.
7
3
6
5
,
8
5
,
7
5
,
7
5
,
6
-
3
,
9
6
,
6
1
,
6
E
l
C
a
r
i
b
e
7
.
4
4
3
7
.
4
0
9
7
.
3
8
2
7
.
3
9
1
3
,
4
3
,
5
3
,
6
2
,
6
4
,
2
3
,
9
1
,
4
T
a
b
l
e
A
4
.
G
r
o
s
s
d
o
m
e
s
t
i
c
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
&
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
v
a
l
u
e
a
d
d
e
d
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
e
c
l
a
c
:
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
C
o
m
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
f
o
r
L
a
t
i
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
&
t
h
e
C
a
r
i
b
b
e
a
n
:
O
w
n
e
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
s
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
o
f
f
c
i
a
l
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
,
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
u
p
d
a
t
e
d
a
s
o
f
M
a
y
2
0
1
2
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
P
r
o
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
i
n
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
1
L
a
b
o
u
r
i
n
s
e
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c
a
l
l
y
a
c
t
i
v
e
r
u
r
a
l
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
2
,
3
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
P
e
r
c
e
n
a
t
g
e
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
p
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
o
c
c
u
p
i
e
d
4
E
m
p
l
o
y
e
r
s
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
s
a
l
a
r
i
e
d
N
o
n
-
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
s
a
l
a
r
i
e
d
S
e
l
f
-
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
S
e
l
f
-
e
m
p
l
o
y
e
d
n
o
n
-
a
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
2
0
0
0
2
0
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
1
9
9
9
/
0
0
2
0
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
1
9
9
9
/
0
0
2
0
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
1
9
9
9
/
0
0
2
0
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
1
9
9
9
/
0
0
2
0
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
1
9
9
9
/
0
0
2
0
0
9
/
2
0
1
0
B
o
l
i
v
i
a
(
9
9
-
0
7
)
3
6
,
8
3
3
,
7
1
,
2
3
,
1
2
,
7
3
,
3
6
,
5
1
0
,
2
8
2
,
1
7
3
,
0
7
,
5
1
0
,
4
B
r
a
z
i
l
(
9
9
-
0
9
)
2
2
,
8
1
7
,
0
2
,
0
2
,
2
1
5
,
6
1
6
,
8
1
8
,
6
2
3
,
0
5
6
,
4
4
9
,
9
7
,
3
8
,
0
C
h
i
l
e
(
0
0
-
0
9
)
1
3
1
1
,
4
2
,
4
2
,
8
4
0
,
2
3
4
,
4
2
3
,
0
3
6
,
7
2
2
,
8
1
5
,
5
8
,
1
1
0
,
5
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
(
9
9
-
1
0
)
2
2
1
8
,
5
3
,
7
5
,
6
2
5
,
9
2
2
,
5
2
1
,
3
1
2
,
5
2
7
,
9
3
8
,
6
2
1
,
2
2
0
,
8
C
o
s
t
a
R
i
c
a
(
9
9
-
1
0
)
1
6
,
9
1
5
,
0
8
,
2
3
,
4
2
1
,
3
2
3
,
8
4
7
,
9
4
8
,
0
9
,
5
1
1
,
0
1
3
,
1
1
3
,
8
E
c
u
a
d
o
r
(
0
0
-
1
0
)
2
8
,
5
2
8
,
2
2
,
0
2
2
,
8
2
0
,
2
4
4
,
6
1
0
,
5
E
l
S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
(
9
9
-
1
0
)
2
0
,
7
2
2
,
2
4
,
1
3
,
1
2
0
,
2
2
0
,
0
3
0
,
5
2
8
,
6
2
6
,
3
2
8
,
1
1
8
,
8
2
0
,
2
G
u
a
t
e
m
a
l
a
(
9
8
-
1
0
)
3
6
,
5
3
3
,
8
2
,
0
1
,
9
2
6
,
6
1
6
,
0
1
6
,
3
2
1
,
6
3
4
,
8
4
0
,
0
2
0
,
2
2
0
,
6
H
o
n
d
u
r
a
s
(
9
9
-
1
0
)
3
4
3
7
,
5
3
,
1
1
,
3
1
6
,
4
1
6
,
8
1
7
,
1
1
5
,
5
4
1
,
3
4
5
,
3
2
2
,
1
2
1
,
1
M
e
x
i
c
o
(
0
2
-
1
0
)
1
7
,
5
1
3
,
5
3
,
3
1
3
,
9
1
5
,
7
1
5
,
8
3
6
,
7
4
5
,
9
2
5
,
4
1
1
,
6
1
8
,
9
1
2
,
7
N
i
c
a
r
a
g
u
a
(
9
8
-
0
5
)
3
2
,
4
3
,
3
2
3
,
7
2
0
,
0
3
9
,
7
1
3
,
3
P
a
n
a
m
a
(
0
2
-
1
0
)
1
7
1
8
,
1
2
,
0
2
,
6
1
4
,
2
1
3
,
0
2
5
,
8
3
1
,
6
3
9
,
3
3
5
,
2
1
8
,
7
1
7
,
5
P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y
(
9
9
-
1
0
)
3
0
,
8
2
5
,
8
3
,
4
3
,
6
7
,
2
6
,
8
1
9
,
8
2
3
,
2
5
4
,
0
5
1
,
8
1
5
,
6
1
4
,
6
P
e
r
u
c
/
(
0
3
-
1
0
)
3
2
3
1
,
6
5
,
0
5
,
1
8
,
2
1
0
,
2
6
,
3
1
3
,
5
6
9
,
5
5
8
,
4
1
1
,
0
1
2
,
9
D
o
m
i
n
i
c
a
n
R
e
p
u
b
l
i
c
(
0
2
-
1
0
)
1
5
,
9
1
4
,
5
1
,
7
2
,
5
5
,
5
4
,
8
3
1
,
1
3
3
,
9
3
5
,
0
2
8
,
6
2
6
,
7
3
0
,
3
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
(
1
0
)
9
,
8
9
,
5
3
2
,
4
2
2
,
0
2
8
,
5
7
,
5
V
e
n
a
z
u
e
l
a
1
0
,
6
T
a
b
l
e
A
5
.
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
a
l
&
r
u
r
a
l
e
m
p
l
o
y
m
e
n
t
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
1
/
e
c
l
a
c
,
A
n
n
u
a
l
S
t
a
t
i
s
t
i
c
s
2
0
1
1
2
/
e
c
l
a
c
,
P
a
n
o
r
a
m
a
S
o
c
i
a
l
2
0
1
1
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
.)
3
/
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
a
g
e
o
f
1
5
y
e
a
r
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
p
e
a
4
/
Y
e
a
r
c
l
o
s
e
s
t
t
o
t
h
e
h
e
a
d
o
f
t
h
e
c
o
l
u
m
n
.
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
P
o
v
e
r
t
y
,
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
&
m
e
d
i
a
n
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
I
n
c
i
d
e
n
c
e
o
f
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
a
n
d
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
(
1
8
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
)
,
p
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
s
A
v
e
r
a
g
e
m
o
n
t
h
l
y
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
i
n
c
o
m
e
(
1
7
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
)
(
m
u
l
t
i
p
l
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
l
i
n
e
)
T
o
t
a
l
P
o
v
e
r
t
y
2
P
o
v
e
r
t
y
i
n
R
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
T
o
ta
l E
x
tre
m
e
P
o
v
e
rty
2
E
x
t
r
e
m
e
P
o
v
e
r
t
y
i
n
R
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
U
r
b
a
n
A
r
e
a
s
R
u
r
a
l
A
r
e
a
s
2
0
0
3
/
0
5
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
0
3
/
0
5
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
0
3
/
0
5
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
0
3
/
0
5
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
0
3
/
0
5
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
2
0
0
4
/
0
5
2
0
0
9
/
1
0
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
(
0
4
-
0
6
)
2
9
,
4
8
,
6
1
1
,
1
2
,
8
8
,
8
1
8
,
8
B
o
l
i
v
i
a
(
0
4
-
0
7
)
6
3
,
9
5
4
,
0
8
0
,
6
7
5
,
8
3
4
,
7
3
1
,
2
5
8
,
8
5
9
,
0
6
,
8
2
,
9
3
,
5
B
r
a
s
i
l
(
0
5
-
0
9
)
3
6
,
3
2
4
,
9
5
3
,
2
3
9
,
3
1
0
,
6
7
,
0
2
2
,
1
1
5
,
2
1
0
,
8
1
2
,
5
6
,
3
7
,
8
C
h
i
l
e
(
0
3
-
0
9
)
1
8
,
7
1
1
,
5
2
0
,
0
1
0
,
4
4
,
7
3
,
6
6
,
2
4
,
4
1
3
,
9
1
4
,
8
1
1
,
1
1
2
,
5
C
o
l
o
m
b
i
a
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
4
6
,
8
4
4
,
3
5
0
,
5
6
2
,
7
2
0
,
2
1
4
,
8
2
5
,
6
2
6
,
7
8
,
3
8
,
1
6
,
2
4
,
4
C
o
s
t
a
R
i
c
a
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
2
1
,
1
1
8
,
5
2
2
,
7
2
0
,
8
7
,
0
6
,
8
9
,
0
9
,
9
1
0
,
7
1
1
,
3
9
,
8
1
0
,
7
E
c
u
a
d
o
r
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
4
8
,
3
3
9
,
2
5
4
,
5
4
3
,
2
2
1
,
2
1
6
,
4
2
9
,
2
2
0
,
8
7
,
4
7
,
7
5
,
8
6
,
3
E
l
S
a
l
v
a
d
o
r
(
0
4
-
0
0
)
4
7
,
5
4
6
,
6
5
6
,
8
5
5
,
8
1
9
,
0
1
6
,
7
2
6
,
6
2
3
,
5
6
,
7
6
,
0
5
,
2
4
,
9
H
o
n
d
u
r
a
s
(
0
3
-
0
0
)
7
4
,
8
6
7
,
4
8
4
,
8
7
6
,
5
5
9
,
3
4
2
,
8
6
9
,
4
5
6
,
8
5
,
6
5
,
8
3
,
1
4
,
4
M
x
i
c
o
(
0
4
-
0
0
)
3
7
,
0
3
6
,
3
4
4
,
1
4
2
,
9
1
1
,
7
1
3
,
3
1
9
,
3
2
1
,
3
8
,
9
7
,
8
7
,
1
6
,
7
N
i
c
a
r
a
g
u
a
(
0
5
)
6
1
,
9
7
1
,
5
3
1
,
9
4
6
,
1
7
,
3
5
,
3
P
a
n
a
m
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
3
1
,
0
2
5
,
8
4
7
,
2
4
4
,
8
1
4
,
1
1
2
,
6
2
7
,
5
2
6
,
6
1
1
,
4
1
1
,
6
6
,
8
7
,
3
P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
6
0
,
5
5
4
,
8
6
8
,
1
6
6
,
6
3
2
,
1
3
0
,
7
4
4
,
2
4
6
,
8
5
,
5
6
,
2
4
,
8
5
,
2
P
e
r
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
4
8
,
7
3
1
,
3
7
0
,
9
5
4
,
2
1
7
,
4
9
,
8
3
7
,
9
2
3
,
3
7
,
7
9
,
5
3
,
4
5
,
1
R
e
p
b
l
i
c
a
D
o
m
i
n
i
c
a
n
a
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
4
7
,
5
4
1
,
4
5
1
,
4
4
5
,
2
2
4
,
6
2
0
,
9
2
8
,
8
2
6
,
5
7
,
9
8
,
6
6
,
2
6
,
6
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
1
8
,
8
8
,
4
4
,
2
4
,
1
1
,
4
1
,
1
1
0
,
1
1
0
,
7
V
e
n
e
z
u
e
l
a
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
3
7
,
1
2
7
,
8
1
5
,
9
1
0
,
7
A
m
r
i
c
a
L
a
t
i
n
a
3
(
0
5
-
0
0
)
3
9
,
8
3
1
,
4
5
8
,
8
5
2
,
6
1
5
,
4
1
2
,
3
3
2
,
5
3
0
,
0
C
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
C
r
o
p
s
L
i
v
e
s
t
o
c
k
F
i
s
h
i
n
g
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
E
x
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
I
m
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
E
x
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
I
m
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
E
x
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
I
m
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
E
x
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
I
m
p
o
r
t
s
(
%
)
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
2
0
0
0
/
0
5
2
0
0
5
/
1
1
A
n
t
ig
u
a
&
B
a
r
b
u
d
a
0
,0
0
,0
0
,0
0
,0
A
r
g
e
n
t
in
a
1
0
,7
1
3
,5
-
4
,1
1
3
,0
1
8
,6
6
,0
-
1
4
,5
1
6
,7
-
1
,2
7
,1
-
6
,7
1
3
,0
1
6
,4
3
,4
-
2
,6
6
,3
B
a
h
a
m
a
s
-
3
1
,5
3
,8
-
3
0
,8
3
,3
-
2
,8
3
,9
5
5
,2
5
,5
2
,9
-
1
,0
B
a
r
b
a
d
o
s
4
,5
4
,1
5
,6
4
,4
7
,1
-
1
1
,7
6
,5
3
,3
-
0
,9
-
1
9
,4
8
,8
-
0
,1
3
3
,3
8
2
,9
-
5
,4
1
,6
B
e
liz
e
1
1
,5
0
,0
1
,2
1
3
,3
2
9
,6
-
6
0
,2
0
,5
3
,5
2
4
,0
-
8
,0
-
3
,6
-
1
2
,7
-
7
,2
3
0
,5
-
1
0
,8
7
,8
B
o
liv
ia
(
P
lu
r
in
a
t
io
n
a
l S
t
a
t
e
o
f
)
1
0
,1
1
3
,2
-
1
,1
1
3
,5
2
,5
8
,8
-
4
,2
8
,9
-
1
9
,6
2
9
,4
9
,7
9
,1
3
,5
1
1
,5
B
r
a
z
il
1
7
,4
1
7
,4
-
3
,3
2
0
,0
3
1
,8
1
1
,5
-
1
3
,0
2
3
,4
1
1
,1
-
8
,5
-
1
,1
2
4
,3
1
3
,4
6
,5
0
,8
1
0
,7
C
a
n
a
d
a
7
,2
1
2
,7
9
,2
9
,5
4
,7
2
,7
2
,5
9
,4
5
,7
1
,5
3
,8
6
,8
2
,6
-
6
,3
4
,3
-
0
,9
C
h
ile
8
,8
1
5
,0
6
,6
1
4
,7
3
5
,3
6
,1
1
4
,5
1
4
,8
1
0
,2
2
,4
1
6
,0
1
4
,1
1
0
,3
8
,3
1
3
,5
9
,7
C
o
lo
m
b
ia
7
,1
7
,4
6
,1
1
6
,6
2
8
,7
-
1
7
,0
-
1
1
,3
1
7
,9
-
1
,7
1
,4
1
0
,5
1
5
,7
1
3
,5
7
,8
6
,5
7
,9
C
o
s
t
a
R
ic
a
5
,6
6
,3
7
,4
1
4
,3
1
0
,3
9
,9
1
,5
1
6
,9
-
0
,8
1
,4
9
,5
1
2
,9
8
,7
1
2
,3
4
,0
1
,9
C
u
b
a
-
1
0
,1
1
4
,5
6
,2
1
4
,7
-
1
,7
6
,1
6
,5
8
6
,0
3
,6
-
1
1
,5
D
o
m
in
ic
a
-
7
,2
-
6
,5
0
,1
9
,2
3
7
,3
1
,8
1
2
,0
5
0
,7
-
5
9
,6
2
,2
4
,9
1
2
,5
-
1
,1
-
1
5
,9
1
3
,2
E
c
u
a
d
o
r
1
0
,1
1
4
,0
1
6
,4
1
4
,7
-
1
8
,8
2
7
,4
1
6
,0
1
6
,4
9
,5
1
3
,2
2
0
,1
7
7
,3
2
4
,0
6
,9
7
,4
8
,6
E
l S
a
lv
a
d
o
r
0
,3
9
,9
8
,7
8
,9
-
0
,6
1
4
,2
6
,0
1
2
,8
2
6
,8
3
,3
3
9
,0
6
,3
1
0
,9
2
2
,8
3
,1
6
,5
U
n
it
e
d
S
t
a
t
e
s
4
,6
1
3
,0
8
,4
7
,7
-
1
,8
1
3
,3
5
,3
0
,1
6
,1
3
,7
4
,5
4
,0
1
,5
5
,9
5
,6
-
9
,9
G
r
a
n
a
d
a
-
9
,8
1
,8
3
,4
1
2
,4
-
1
7
,5
5
7
,1
4
,3
1
1
,4
-
2
,3
-
4
,1
4
,2
1
6
,3
0
,0
0
,0
G
u
a
t
e
m
a
la
2
,7
1
6
,7
1
3
,6
1
2
,7
4
,3
1
4
,4
1
0
,0
8
,5
-
3
,8
3
5
,3
2
9
,9
1
6
,6
1
8
,4
1
,8
7
,9
7
,6
G
u
y
a
n
a
6
,3
9
,4
6
,0
1
6
,4
9
,6
7
,7
6
,0
4
,9
2
,9
-
4
,8
-
1
0
,9
2
,1
2
,2
-
0
,9
1
6
,2
2
,0
H
a
it
i
3
5
,6
0
,7
2
9
,5
H
o
n
d
u
r
a
s
-
1
,6
2
0
,5
-
0
,6
2
0
,2
2
0
,9
-
0
,1
7
,6
2
2
,3
3
2
,0
7
7
,2
2
1
,5
1
4
,0
-
1
9
,5
0
,3
1
1
,6
2
,6
J
a
m
a
ic
a
0
,0
6
,5
6
,9
1
4
,0
-
1
,7
7
,2
4
,5
2
,4
-
3
,5
-
3
,5
5
,9
3
,4
9
8
,1
5
8
,4
-
7
,1
3
,6
M
e
x
ic
o
7
,9
8
,9
8
,7
8
,6
6
,6
4
,4
6
,2
4
,5
-
2
,0
4
,3
2
1
,2
4
,7
8
,1
4
,9
8
,8
4
,6
N
ic
a
r
a
g
u
a
5
,8
1
7
,1
4
,1
1
7
,4
1
3
,8
2
5
,9
-
4
,4
1
3
,5
3
,4
6
,2
-
1
2
,1
8
,3
-
3
,3
-
3
,8
9
,3
8
,6
P
a
n
a
m
a
3
,5
1
0
,9
2
5
,5
1
,2
-
9
,5
1
5
,2
1
1
,0
-
1
0
,4
1
2
,9
3
0
,0
1
2
,3
5
,5
3
,5
P
a
r
a
g
u
a
y
1
6
,6
2
3
,9
-
3
,8
1
9
,6
2
3
,3
2
0
,8
-
1
,8
1
9
,9
2
7
,3
-
3
4
,8
-
2
,3
3
1
,0
-
3
,6
1
6
,4
1
4
,7
1
6
,9
P
e
r
u
1
6
,3
1
9
,8
1
0
,5
1
7
,3
4
5
,2
1
6
,6
3
,3
1
4
,8
7
,0
1
0
,5
1
8
,7
3
0
,6
9
,7
-
4
,4
1
2
,7
1
4
,3
D
o
m
in
ic
a
n
R
e
p
u
b
lic
5
,6
0
,3
-
5
,5
1
,0
2
6
,7
8
,5
4
6
,3
3
0
,3
0
,4
8
,0
S
a
in
t
K
it
t
s
&
N
e
v
is
-
2
4
,5
5
4
,2
-
0
,2
1
5
,6
-
1
2
,4
2
0
,0
4
,2
8
,1
-
4
,5
5
9
,7
1
,1
1
5
,7
0
,0
0
,0
0
,0
0
,0
S
a
n
V
ic
e
n
t
e
&
t
h
e
G
r
e
n
a
-
d
in
e
s
-
6
,1
-
0
,4
1
,9
1
4
,2
1
6
,4
9
,9
7
,0
5
,5
-
1
4
,6
7
,7
9
,4
0
,6
5
8
,5
5
5
,9
-
2
4
,4
5
,1
S
a
in
t
L
u
c
ia
-
0
,8
4
,8
1
4
0
,2
6
,5
-
6
0
,5
8
,4
0
,0
5
,0
S
u
r
in
a
m
e
0
,5
1
3
,9
1
9
,6
1
8
,6
T
r
in
in
d
a
d
&
T
o
b
a
g
o
3
,5
-
4
,6
1
3
,0
7
,0
-
8
,5
5
,8
5
,4
1
1
,9
-
6
,6
1
,7
2
2
,2
7
,4
-
8
,4
4
1
,6
1
0
,7
-
1
,3
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
1
1
,0
3
1
,4
-
5
,4
2
4
,1
1
7
,0
1
1
,5
1
5
,0
9
,8
5
,8
8
,1
8
,2
2
7
,8
1
7
,9
4
1
,8
-
4
,8
7
,7
V
e
n
e
z
u
e
la
(
B
o
liv
ia
n
R
e
p
. o
f
)
-
9
,2
-
2
2
,0
1
,8
8
,8
-
3
0
,0
1
4
,8
8
,1
-
1
4
,8
-
3
,6
-
6
,5
0
,3
-
1
6
,2
0
,7
1
0
,6
T
a
b
l
e
A
6
.
P
o
v
e
r
t
y
,
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
&
m
e
d
i
a
n
i
n
c
o
m
e
s
T
a
b
l
e
A
7
.
A
n
n
u
a
l
g
r
o
w
t
h
i
n
t
r
a
d
e
b
y
s
e
c
t
o
r
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
e
c
l
a
c
,
P
a
n
o
r
a
m
a
S
o
c
i
a
l
2
0
1
1
(
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
d
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
h
o
u
s
e
h
o
l
d
s
u
r
v
e
y
s
i
n
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
)
1
/
I
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
p
e
o
p
l
e
b
e
l
o
w
t
h
e
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
c
e
l
i
n
e
o
r
i
n
a
s
i
t
u
a
t
i
o
n
o
f
i
n
d
i
g
e
n
c
e
(
e
x
t
r
e
m
e
p
o
v
e
r
t
y
)
2
/
D
a
t
a
f
r
o
m
A
r
g
e
n
t
i
n
a
&
U
r
u
g
u
a
y
b
e
f
o
r
e
2
0
0
7
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
s
t
o
T
o
t
a
l
U
r
b
a
n
A
r
e
a
s
3
/
E
s
t
i
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
o
r
1
8
c
o
u
n
t
r
i
e
s
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
n
d
H
a
i
t
i
.
S
o
u
r
c
e
:
:
I
n
t
e
r
-
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
n
I
n
s
t
i
t
u
t
e
f
o
r
C
o
o
p
e
r
a
t
i
o
n
i
n
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
(
i
i
c
a
)
b
a
s
e
d
o
n
i
n
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
U
n
i
t
e
d
N
a
t
i
o
n
s
(
c
o
m
t
r
a
d
e
)
&
f
a
o
(
f
a
o
s
t
a
t
)
.
N
o
t
e
:
a
r
g
,
b
r
b
,
b
l
z
,
c
h
l
,
d
m
a
,
s
l
v
,
g
t
m
,
g
u
y
,
j
a
m
,
m
e
x
,
n
i
c
,
p
a
n
,
d
o
m
,
v
c
t
,
t
t
o
,
u
r
y
,
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
s
2
0
0
5
/
1
0
F
o
r
g
r
d
,
k
n
a
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
s
2
0
0
5
/
0
8
.
F
o
r
h
n
d
,
t
h
e
l
a
s
t
p
e
r
i
o
d
i
s
2
0
0
5
/
2
0
0
7
.
Countries
Crops Livestock Fishing Forestry
2000/05 2005/11 2000/05 2005/11 2000/05 2005/11 2000/05 2005/11
Antigua & Barbuda
Argentina 1,5 3,0 8,8 -3,9 -9,4 -2,9 6,71 -6,57
Bahamas -39,0 -38,3 -13,4 -5,94
Barbados 2,5 7,9 5,0 -8,5 -2,9 -16,4 105,21
Belize 8,9 -3,7 26,6 -61,7 21,1 -11,5 -9,37 39,08
Bolivia (Plurinational State of ) -4,5 -4,0 -11,1 -7,8 -26,3 -4,86 -7,46
Brazil 0,5 5,5 12,8 0,2 -4,9 -17,7 -2,95 -4,29
Canada 1,3 11,2 -1,1 1,3 -0,1 0,2 -2,98 -7,57
Chile -6,8 5,8 16,0 -2,4 -5,5 -5,8 -5,49 0,17
Colombia -2,9 -7,0 16,8 -28,2 -10,8 -12,2 2,98 -6,67
Costa Rica -0,8 0,8 3,6 4,2 -6,8 -3,9 2,14 6,43
Cuba -17,0 -1,9 -9,2 -1,65
Dominica -3,2 -2,3 43,6 57,2 -57,7 17,27 4,19
Ecuador -5,2 2,1 -30,1 14,0 -5,7 1,4 6,77 -4,26
El Salvador -4,3 -14,2 -5,2 -10,8 20,9 -19,4 5,81 -2,36
United States 1,4 5,9 -4,9 6,2 2,7 -2,7 -1,69 -0,66
Granada 9,9 -3,9 0,5 48,3 19,0 -9,5
Guatemala -9,2 1,7 -7,7 -0,3 -14,9 17,9 4,79 -11,35
Guyana 4,5 -1,9 7,8 -3,4 1,2 -14,6 0,48 -11,12
Haiti
Honduras -3,3 -11,4 18,7 -26,5 29,6 30,4 -20,90 15,13
Jamaica -3,5 12,2 -5,1 12,9 -6,9 1,6 91,19 71,05
Mexico 2,5 4,4 1,3 0,1 -7,0 -0,0 2,64 1,82
Nicaragua -1,4 -2,4 6,0 5,0 -3,7 -11,5 -9,95 -22,69
Panama -0,0 -39,5 -2,3 -50,7 7,2 -51,1 25,53 -38,48
Paraguay 0,9 2,1 6,7 -0,4 10,2 -46,2 -16,59 -4,06
Peru -3,5 5,0 20,5 2,2 -11,2 -3,1 -8,94 -16,16
Dominican Republic 14,6 2,6 37,6 36,32
Saint Kitts & Nevis -27,2 38,9 -15,5 8,1 -7,9 43,8 -3,54 -9,94
San Vicente & the Grenadines -1,1 -3,3 22,6 6,6 -10,1 4,5 66,92 57,61
Saint Lucia -11,9 113,4 -64,9
Suriname
Trinidad & Tobago -10,5 -3,8 -20,9 6,6 -19,3 2,6 -20,77 48,64
Uruguay 1,4 15,1 6,9 -2,3 -3,4 -5,3 7,67 35,31
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of ) -19,2 43,9 -37,7 180,1 -24,2 67,4 -10,75
Countries
Crops Livestock Fishing
1
Forestry
2
2000/05 2005/10 2000/05 2005/10 2000/05 2005/10 2000/05 2005/10
Antigua & Barbuda -2,01 2,04 -3,55 4,62 11,30 -5,18
Argentina 3,94 1,26 -0,38 1,12 0,16 -4,43 10,75 0,52
Bahamas -1,75 2,23 2,16 2,26 1,71 -0,35 0,00 16,86
Barbados -4,42 -5,04 2,07 1,79 -6,80 12,77 11,92 0,00
Belize -0,20 -2,54 9,85 0,30 -12,19 14,46 0,00 -1,05
Bolivia (Plurinational State of ) 5,26 4,13 5,19 3,03 2,55 3,60 3,17 1,08
Brazil 5,35 9,14 4,86 2,99 3,32 5,02 1,66 1,02
Canada 3,27 0,79 0,42 0,47 2,36 -2,71 0,87 -9,87
Chile 2,36 -2,67 2,78 1,45 3,25 -6,26 4,22 1,37
Colombia 2,82 -4,45 2,58 3,03 -2,54 -1,58 -2,69 -0,10
Costa Rica 1,93 -1,67 1,53 3,91 0,36 1,62 -2,47 -0,29
Cuba -12,16 0,20 -6,46 10,01 -10,73 2,50 8,55 -5,46
Dominica -4,82 3,97 -3,50 7,02 -14,60 5,14 0,00
Ecuador 2,96 3,99 16,02 3,81 -4,06 3,61 3,28 2,01
El Salvador -0,78 3,35 2,30 2,80 32,84 -4,35 -1,69 0,12
United States 1,59 1,55 0,99 1,45 0,94 -3,00 0,27 -7,28
Granada -1,84 0,10 0,45 4,40 2,29 4,20
Guatemala 5,82 0,19 2,70 1,67 -12,97 8,28 2,11 2,10
Guyana 1,60 -1,30 6,98 2,42 2,39 -4,44 3,31 -0,88
Haiti 1,26 1,76 1,71 2,85 6,33 0,44 0,33 0,36
Honduras 9,33 4,53 4,38 0,99 16,33 -13,09 0,22 -1,24
Jamaica -4,07 4,03 1,13 -0,13 10,28 -1,48 -0,90 -2,71
Mexico 2,07 0,52 1,99 1,80 -0,38 3,39 -0,38 0,45
Nicaragua 4,30 3,05 2,92 4,84 4,48 8,67 0,31 0,34
Panama 1,20 0,01 1,52 3,66 -0,87 -6,75 0,05 -3,25
Paraguay 8,73 4,25 2,09 3,75 -13,97 -21,12 1,01 1,03
Peru 0,81 5,33 3,80 5,73 -1,21 -10,46 -0,04 -1,30
Dominican Republic 2,53 1,96 1,53 5,14 -1,00 4,59 0,15 7,40
Saint Kitts & Nevis -6,24 -35,72 -0,63 -3,67 -1,41 71,72
San Vicente & the Grenadines 2,25 3,84 -2,52 3,61 -45,63 63,73 -1,89
Saint Lucia -5,16 2,57 8,75 2,69 -6,38 6,52 0,00
Suriname -3,65 6,74 1,70 3,84 5,78 1,04 0,42 4,61
Trinidad & Tobago -17,96 -34,67 7,43 -2,04 1,66 -3,03 -2,74 -5,33
Uruguay 9,87 10,40 2,40 1,32 3,07 -11,13 15,36 14,58
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of ) 1,14 1,23 -1,33 5,84 5,03 -6,39 2,72 4,09
Table A8. Participation of sector exports in total exports of goods
(Annual cumulative growth, percentages)
Table A9. Annual cumulative rate of production growth by sector, percentages
Source: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (iica) based on information from the United Nations
(comtrade) & fao (faostat).
Note: arg, brb, blz, chl, dma, slv, gtm, guy, jam, mex, nic, pan, dom, vct, tto, ury, the last period is 2005/10
For grd, kna the last period is 2005/08.
For hnd, the last period is 2005/2007.
Source: Inter-American Institute for Cooperation in Agriculture (iica) based on offcial fao information (faostat).
1/Comprende toda la produccin (acuacultura & captura) tanto de aguas oceanicas como aguas continentales.
Source: fisgstat fao. Available at: http://www.fao.org/fshery/topic/16140/en
2/ Comprises all wood obtained from extraction operations in forests and in other areas during the current period year or
forestry period)
Country
Total land
area *
Total
Agriculture
Area (TAA) *
Arable
Land &
Permanent
Crops
(ALPC)*
% ALPC/TAA
Grazing
Land and
Grasslands
(GLG) *
%GLG/TAA Forest area *
Protected
areas **
Antigua & Barbuda 44,0 13,0 9,0 0,7 4,0 0,3 9,8
Argentina 273.669,0 140.500,0 32.000,0 0,2 108.500,0 0,8 29.879,6
Bahamas 1.001,0 14,0 12,0 0,9 2,0 0,1 515,0
Barbados 43,0 19,0 17,0 0,9 2,0 0,1 8,4 21515***
Belize 2.281,0 152,0 102,0 0,7 50,0 0,3 1.412,2
Bolivia (Plurinational State of ) 108.330,0 36.954,0 3.954,0 0,1 33.000,0 0,9 57.811,2
Brazil 845.942,0 264.500,0 68.500,0 0,3 196.000,0 0,7 523.910,8
Canada 909.351,0 67.600,0 52.150,0 0,8 15.450,0 0,2 310.134,0 800,6
Chile 74.353,2 15.742,0 1.727,0 0,1 14.015,0 0,9 16.155,8
Colombia 110.950,0 42.540,0 3.354,0 0,1 39.186,0 0,9 60.701,0 17.066,90
Costa Rica 5.106,0 1.800,0 500,0 0,3 1.300,0 0,7 2.559,4 70.530,00
Cuba 10.644,0 6.655,0 4.025,0 0,6 2.630,0 0,4 2.800,8
Dominica 75,0 24,5 22,5 0,9 2,0 0,1 45,2
Ecuador 24.836,0 7.534,0 2.548,0 0,3 4.986,0 0,7 10.260,2 14.334,90
El Salvador 2.072,0 1.544,0 907,0 0,6 637,0 0,4 295,8 14.508,80
United States 914.742,0 403.451,0 165.451,0 0,4 238.000,0 0,6 303.256,4 1.355,80
Granada 34,0 12,5 11,5 0,9 1,0 0,1 17,0 330,9
Guatemala 10.716,0 4.395,0 2.445,0 0,6 1.950,0 0,4 3.769,4
Guyana 19.685,0 1.675,0 445,0 0,3 1.230,0 0,7 15.205,0
Haiti 2.756,0 1.840,0 1.350,0 0,7 490,0 0,3 102,6 41,6
Honduras 11.189,0 3.190,0 1.430,0 0,4 1.760,0 0,6 5.432,0
Jamaica 1.083,0 449,0 220,0 0,5 229,0 0,5 337,9
Mexico 194.395,0 102.833,0 27.833,0 0,3 75.000,0 0,7 65.112,4
Nicaragua 12.034,0 5.146,0 2.130,0 0,4 3.016,0 0,6 3.254,0 3.089,00
Panama 7.434,0 2.230,0 695,0 0,3 1.535,0 0,7 3.274,6
Paraguay 39.730,0 20.900,0 3.900,0 0,2 17.000,0 0,8 17.939,2
Peru 128.000,0 21.440,0 4.440,0 0,2 17.000,0 0,8 68.292,0
Dominican Republic 4.832,0 2.467,0 1.270,0 0,5 1.197,0 0,5 1.972,0 3163,6***
Saint Kitts & Nevis 26,0 5,5 4,2 0,8 1,3 0,2 11,0
San Vicente & the Grenadines 39,0 10,0 8,0 0,8 2,0 0,2 26,5
Saint Lucia 61,0 11,0 10,0 0,9 1,0 0,1 47,0
Suriname 15.600,0 81,4 64,0 0,8 17,4 0,2 14.765,2 18.700,40
Trinidad & Tobago 513,0 54,0 47,0 0,9 7,0 0,1 227,8
Uruguay 17.502,0 14.807,0 1.912,0 0,1 12.895,0 0,9 1.654,4
Venezuela (Bolivarian Republic of ) 88.205,0 21.400,0 3.400,0 0,2 18.000,0 0,8 46.850,2
Americas 3.837.273,2 1.191.988,9 386.893,2 0,3 805.095,7 0,7 1.568.045,9
alc + Mexico 2.013.180,2 720.937,9 169.292,2 0,2 551.645,7 0,8 954.655,5 255.839,40
Table A10. Land use in the Americas by category (1,000 ha)
* Source: fao, faostat (2009).
** Source: eclac, eclacstat (2007; *** 2006).
The Outlook for Agriculture
and Rural Development
in the Americas:
2013
A Perspective on Latin
America and the Caribbean
Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean
Address: Av. Dag Hammarskjold 3477, Vitacura, Santiago, Chile
Central telephone: (56-2) 471-2000 - 210-2000 - 208-5051
Main facsimile: (56-2) 208-0252
Postal address: P.O. Box 179-D, Santiago, Chile
Postal code: 7630412
E-mail: dpisantiago@cepal.org
Website: www.edac.org
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations
Regional Oce for Latin America and the Caribbean
Av. Dag Hammarskjold 3241, Vitacura Santiago, Chile
Tel: (56-2) 9232100
E-mail: FAO-RLC@fao.org
Website: www.rlc.fao.org
Inter-American Insitute for Cooperation on Agriculture
Headquarters
P.O. Box: 55-2200 San Jos, Vzquez de Coronado,
San Isidro 11101, Costa Rica
Tel: (506) 2216-0222
Fax: (506) 2216-0233
E-mail: iicahq@iica.int
Website: www.iica.int
T
h
e
O
u
t
l
o
o
k
f
o
r
A
g
r
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
R
u
r
a
l
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
i
n
t
h
e
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
s
:
A
P
e
r
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
o
n
L
a
t
i
n
A
m
e
r
i
c
a
a
n
d
t
h
e
C
a
r
i
b
b
e
a
n
2
0
1
3